claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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"
]
|
Says he was the first person to call for invoking the Defense Production Act. | Contradiction | During an event to discuss school reopening amid the coronavirus pandemic, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden repeated a talking point he's used previously - that he was ahead of the curve in calling for the Defense Production Act to be used to boost manufacturing of high-demand health products, such as protective equipment. In a question-and-answer session with reporters following his Sept. 2 event in Wilmington, Del., Biden said, 'When it got up to March, I kept saying, look, you've got to invoke, and you remember, I think I was the first - I may be mistaken - person calling about the Defense Production Act. ... Use that authority. Use it to go out there now and don't wait to talk about the need for us to have masks.' Biden said he may be mistaken, and he is. But Biden made similar remarks in mid to late March, which our friends at FactCheck.org rated skeptically. Since he has continued to say it, we will put it on the Truth-O-Meter. Let's take a fresh look. What is the Defense Production Act? The Defense Production Act was signed by President Harry Truman in 1950 and amended periodically since then. Broadly, it allows the federal government to take a stronger role in directing domestic manufacturing capabilities during a national emergency, according to the Congressional Research Service. These powers allow the government to tell private businesses when and how to fulfill orders for essential goods. Over the years, its scope has been expanded from military needs to natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. 'The DPA is one of those seemingly obscure laws that is actually extraordinarily significant,' Margaret O'Mara, a University of Washington historian who studies the connections between government and industry, told us in March. A look at the timeline The earliest discussion of using the Defense Production Act to combat the coronavirus came on Feb. 26, just three weeks after the first coronavirus death in the United States. Here's a rundown: Feb. 26: New York City emergency management commissioner Deanne Criswell, at a press conference with Mayor Bill de Blasio, speaking about masks, said, 'There's just a long waiting list and the only way to fulfill that is by the federal government. They have means where they can enact the Defense Production Act and get people to produce these more quickly.' Feb. 28: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at a White House roundtable for the media: 'We will use the Defense Production Act as necessary to enable that our contracts go to the front of the line on contracting. That is an authority that we have, and we intend to use it to acquire anything that we need to acquire. We won't use it unnecessarily, of course. We don't want to be disruptive if that's not needed. But if we need to, we will use it. We won't hesitate.' March 1: Azar said in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, 'Right now, we are initiating the procurement processes for personal protective equipment, so that would be masks, as well as gowns, gloves, etc. We've got that process initiated. We're gathering information from potential vendors.' Asked by host Chris Wallace whether that would be using authority under the act, Azar said, 'If we need to.' March 13: A letter from 57 House Democrats urged the president to 'use the powers afforded by' the Defense Production Act 'to begin the mass production of supplies.' March 15: Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., released a statement about a letter he wrote to the White House urging use of the Defense Production Act. March 15: During the evening Democratic debate, Biden did not mention the Defense Production Act (nor did any of the other candidates). Biden pointed to his coronavirus plan on his campaign website, but that version of the plan did not include the Defense Production Act. March 17: At a White White House coronavirus task force press briefing, Trump himself was asked, 'Do you need to invoke the Defense Production Act to get more of those medical supplies to different hospitals across the country?' He answered, 'Well, we're able to do that if we have to. Right now we haven't had to, but it's certainly ready.' March 18: In the first statement we could locate by Biden on the issue, he released a statement urging the administration to 'prioritize and immediately increase domestic production of any critical medical equipment required to respond to this crisis - such as the production of ventilators and associated training to operate - by invoking the Defense Production Act.' March 18: Trump signed an executive order citing the authority of the act to curb the spread of coronavirus. He specifically mentioned Title I, part of which involves prioritizing contracts that serve national emergency goals over any other contracts or orders. Trump's executive order specifically named 'personal protective equipment and ventilators.' Later that day, Trump indicated a certain reluctance in a tweet. 'I only signed the Defense Production Act to combat the Chinese Virus should we need to invoke it in a worst case scenario in the future. Hopefully there will be no need, but we are all in this TOGETHER!' Biden's campaign did not respond to an inquiry seeking earlier comments by the candidate about the Defense Production Act. It's worth noting that while several contracts have been awarded under the act's authority, critics have said that Trump hasn't used the Defense Production Act to its fullest extent. Several experts made this case to the New York Times in late July. Trump has not used the act 'to create a permanent, sustainable, redundant, domestic supply chain for all things pandemic: testing, swabs, N95 masks, etc.,' Jamie Baker, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and a professor of national security law at Syracuse University, told the Times. Still, even if Biden agrees that Trump's follow-through has been weak, it doesn't mean that he was the first official to call for the Defense Production Act to be used. | Our ruling Biden has said several times he was the first person calling for use of the Defense Production Act. But Biden was far from the first. A full 18 days before Biden made his first public comment on the act, Trump's Health and Human Services secretary had publicly floated the idea, and Trump made it official the same day Biden made his remarks. In between, dozens of Democratic lawmakers publicly called for the act to be used, and Biden did not mention it in a Democratic primary debate. We rate the statement False. | [
"100012-proof-32-20959fd7597fe8f86c626d16b1a20e3b.jpg"
]
|
Says he was the first person to call for invoking the Defense Production Act. | Contradiction | During an event to discuss school reopening amid the coronavirus pandemic, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden repeated a talking point he's used previously - that he was ahead of the curve in calling for the Defense Production Act to be used to boost manufacturing of high-demand health products, such as protective equipment. In a question-and-answer session with reporters following his Sept. 2 event in Wilmington, Del., Biden said, 'When it got up to March, I kept saying, look, you've got to invoke, and you remember, I think I was the first - I may be mistaken - person calling about the Defense Production Act. ... Use that authority. Use it to go out there now and don't wait to talk about the need for us to have masks.' Biden said he may be mistaken, and he is. But Biden made similar remarks in mid to late March, which our friends at FactCheck.org rated skeptically. Since he has continued to say it, we will put it on the Truth-O-Meter. Let's take a fresh look. What is the Defense Production Act? The Defense Production Act was signed by President Harry Truman in 1950 and amended periodically since then. Broadly, it allows the federal government to take a stronger role in directing domestic manufacturing capabilities during a national emergency, according to the Congressional Research Service. These powers allow the government to tell private businesses when and how to fulfill orders for essential goods. Over the years, its scope has been expanded from military needs to natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. 'The DPA is one of those seemingly obscure laws that is actually extraordinarily significant,' Margaret O'Mara, a University of Washington historian who studies the connections between government and industry, told us in March. A look at the timeline The earliest discussion of using the Defense Production Act to combat the coronavirus came on Feb. 26, just three weeks after the first coronavirus death in the United States. Here's a rundown: Feb. 26: New York City emergency management commissioner Deanne Criswell, at a press conference with Mayor Bill de Blasio, speaking about masks, said, 'There's just a long waiting list and the only way to fulfill that is by the federal government. They have means where they can enact the Defense Production Act and get people to produce these more quickly.' Feb. 28: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at a White House roundtable for the media: 'We will use the Defense Production Act as necessary to enable that our contracts go to the front of the line on contracting. That is an authority that we have, and we intend to use it to acquire anything that we need to acquire. We won't use it unnecessarily, of course. We don't want to be disruptive if that's not needed. But if we need to, we will use it. We won't hesitate.' March 1: Azar said in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, 'Right now, we are initiating the procurement processes for personal protective equipment, so that would be masks, as well as gowns, gloves, etc. We've got that process initiated. We're gathering information from potential vendors.' Asked by host Chris Wallace whether that would be using authority under the act, Azar said, 'If we need to.' March 13: A letter from 57 House Democrats urged the president to 'use the powers afforded by' the Defense Production Act 'to begin the mass production of supplies.' March 15: Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., released a statement about a letter he wrote to the White House urging use of the Defense Production Act. March 15: During the evening Democratic debate, Biden did not mention the Defense Production Act (nor did any of the other candidates). Biden pointed to his coronavirus plan on his campaign website, but that version of the plan did not include the Defense Production Act. March 17: At a White White House coronavirus task force press briefing, Trump himself was asked, 'Do you need to invoke the Defense Production Act to get more of those medical supplies to different hospitals across the country?' He answered, 'Well, we're able to do that if we have to. Right now we haven't had to, but it's certainly ready.' March 18: In the first statement we could locate by Biden on the issue, he released a statement urging the administration to 'prioritize and immediately increase domestic production of any critical medical equipment required to respond to this crisis - such as the production of ventilators and associated training to operate - by invoking the Defense Production Act.' March 18: Trump signed an executive order citing the authority of the act to curb the spread of coronavirus. He specifically mentioned Title I, part of which involves prioritizing contracts that serve national emergency goals over any other contracts or orders. Trump's executive order specifically named 'personal protective equipment and ventilators.' Later that day, Trump indicated a certain reluctance in a tweet. 'I only signed the Defense Production Act to combat the Chinese Virus should we need to invoke it in a worst case scenario in the future. Hopefully there will be no need, but we are all in this TOGETHER!' Biden's campaign did not respond to an inquiry seeking earlier comments by the candidate about the Defense Production Act. It's worth noting that while several contracts have been awarded under the act's authority, critics have said that Trump hasn't used the Defense Production Act to its fullest extent. Several experts made this case to the New York Times in late July. Trump has not used the act 'to create a permanent, sustainable, redundant, domestic supply chain for all things pandemic: testing, swabs, N95 masks, etc.,' Jamie Baker, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and a professor of national security law at Syracuse University, told the Times. Still, even if Biden agrees that Trump's follow-through has been weak, it doesn't mean that he was the first official to call for the Defense Production Act to be used. | Our ruling Biden has said several times he was the first person calling for use of the Defense Production Act. But Biden was far from the first. A full 18 days before Biden made his first public comment on the act, Trump's Health and Human Services secretary had publicly floated the idea, and Trump made it official the same day Biden made his remarks. In between, dozens of Democratic lawmakers publicly called for the act to be used, and Biden did not mention it in a Democratic primary debate. We rate the statement False. | [
"100012-proof-32-20959fd7597fe8f86c626d16b1a20e3b.jpg"
]
|
Says he was the first person to call for invoking the Defense Production Act. | Contradiction | During an event to discuss school reopening amid the coronavirus pandemic, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden repeated a talking point he's used previously - that he was ahead of the curve in calling for the Defense Production Act to be used to boost manufacturing of high-demand health products, such as protective equipment. In a question-and-answer session with reporters following his Sept. 2 event in Wilmington, Del., Biden said, 'When it got up to March, I kept saying, look, you've got to invoke, and you remember, I think I was the first - I may be mistaken - person calling about the Defense Production Act. ... Use that authority. Use it to go out there now and don't wait to talk about the need for us to have masks.' Biden said he may be mistaken, and he is. But Biden made similar remarks in mid to late March, which our friends at FactCheck.org rated skeptically. Since he has continued to say it, we will put it on the Truth-O-Meter. Let's take a fresh look. What is the Defense Production Act? The Defense Production Act was signed by President Harry Truman in 1950 and amended periodically since then. Broadly, it allows the federal government to take a stronger role in directing domestic manufacturing capabilities during a national emergency, according to the Congressional Research Service. These powers allow the government to tell private businesses when and how to fulfill orders for essential goods. Over the years, its scope has been expanded from military needs to natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. 'The DPA is one of those seemingly obscure laws that is actually extraordinarily significant,' Margaret O'Mara, a University of Washington historian who studies the connections between government and industry, told us in March. A look at the timeline The earliest discussion of using the Defense Production Act to combat the coronavirus came on Feb. 26, just three weeks after the first coronavirus death in the United States. Here's a rundown: Feb. 26: New York City emergency management commissioner Deanne Criswell, at a press conference with Mayor Bill de Blasio, speaking about masks, said, 'There's just a long waiting list and the only way to fulfill that is by the federal government. They have means where they can enact the Defense Production Act and get people to produce these more quickly.' Feb. 28: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at a White House roundtable for the media: 'We will use the Defense Production Act as necessary to enable that our contracts go to the front of the line on contracting. That is an authority that we have, and we intend to use it to acquire anything that we need to acquire. We won't use it unnecessarily, of course. We don't want to be disruptive if that's not needed. But if we need to, we will use it. We won't hesitate.' March 1: Azar said in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, 'Right now, we are initiating the procurement processes for personal protective equipment, so that would be masks, as well as gowns, gloves, etc. We've got that process initiated. We're gathering information from potential vendors.' Asked by host Chris Wallace whether that would be using authority under the act, Azar said, 'If we need to.' March 13: A letter from 57 House Democrats urged the president to 'use the powers afforded by' the Defense Production Act 'to begin the mass production of supplies.' March 15: Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., released a statement about a letter he wrote to the White House urging use of the Defense Production Act. March 15: During the evening Democratic debate, Biden did not mention the Defense Production Act (nor did any of the other candidates). Biden pointed to his coronavirus plan on his campaign website, but that version of the plan did not include the Defense Production Act. March 17: At a White White House coronavirus task force press briefing, Trump himself was asked, 'Do you need to invoke the Defense Production Act to get more of those medical supplies to different hospitals across the country?' He answered, 'Well, we're able to do that if we have to. Right now we haven't had to, but it's certainly ready.' March 18: In the first statement we could locate by Biden on the issue, he released a statement urging the administration to 'prioritize and immediately increase domestic production of any critical medical equipment required to respond to this crisis - such as the production of ventilators and associated training to operate - by invoking the Defense Production Act.' March 18: Trump signed an executive order citing the authority of the act to curb the spread of coronavirus. He specifically mentioned Title I, part of which involves prioritizing contracts that serve national emergency goals over any other contracts or orders. Trump's executive order specifically named 'personal protective equipment and ventilators.' Later that day, Trump indicated a certain reluctance in a tweet. 'I only signed the Defense Production Act to combat the Chinese Virus should we need to invoke it in a worst case scenario in the future. Hopefully there will be no need, but we are all in this TOGETHER!' Biden's campaign did not respond to an inquiry seeking earlier comments by the candidate about the Defense Production Act. It's worth noting that while several contracts have been awarded under the act's authority, critics have said that Trump hasn't used the Defense Production Act to its fullest extent. Several experts made this case to the New York Times in late July. Trump has not used the act 'to create a permanent, sustainable, redundant, domestic supply chain for all things pandemic: testing, swabs, N95 masks, etc.,' Jamie Baker, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and a professor of national security law at Syracuse University, told the Times. Still, even if Biden agrees that Trump's follow-through has been weak, it doesn't mean that he was the first official to call for the Defense Production Act to be used. | Our ruling Biden has said several times he was the first person calling for use of the Defense Production Act. But Biden was far from the first. A full 18 days before Biden made his first public comment on the act, Trump's Health and Human Services secretary had publicly floated the idea, and Trump made it official the same day Biden made his remarks. In between, dozens of Democratic lawmakers publicly called for the act to be used, and Biden did not mention it in a Democratic primary debate. We rate the statement False. | [
"100012-proof-32-20959fd7597fe8f86c626d16b1a20e3b.jpg"
]
|
'Rocks being dropped off in cages in LA for rioters. Compliments of George Soros. | Contradiction | Billionaire philanthropist George Soros isn't 'funding the chaos' in Minneapolis as people protest over the death of George Floyd, who died in police custody after an officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. We debunked that claim. But misinformation about Soros tends to mushroom online. Now we're looking at a new allegation, which claims he's supplying rocks for rioters in Los Angeles. 'Rocks being dropped off in cages in LA for rioters,' the June 1 Facebook post says. 'Compliments of George Soros. America is laced with terrorist activities that are using a HORRIBLE SITUATION to terrorize our homes, businesses and cities. This is a warning to all my friends that these are not protesters. These are paid very dangerous people by George Soros. Don't think for a minute that you may not have to defend your family.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post includes four photos showing rocks in metal cages on the sidewalk. In one the images, the sign of a business across the street is visible: Monza Car. We looked for Monza Car in Los Angeles and found the street where the photos were taken - Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, Calif. Using Google Maps street view, you can see that the building closest to the rocks in the photo is Chabad of Sherman Oaks, a community center for Jews. The rocks don't appear in the Google Maps image. However, Chabad of Sherman Oaks responded to the rock rumors on its Facebook page on June 1. 'To all concerned neighbors and friends,' the post says. 'There were false pictures and videos going around today, claiming some bricks or rocks were placed at our center. Here is the truth: THESE ARE SECURITY BARRIERS and have been here for almost a year! Nevertheless to alleviate people's concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed (as can be seen in this picture). Stay safe, we are praying for you all, and may there only be goodness and peace in our community.' The post includes a photo of the barriers without rocks. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Rocks being dropped off in cages in LA for rioters. Compliments of George Soros. | Contradiction | Billionaire philanthropist George Soros isn't 'funding the chaos' in Minneapolis as people protest over the death of George Floyd, who died in police custody after an officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. We debunked that claim. But misinformation about Soros tends to mushroom online. Now we're looking at a new allegation, which claims he's supplying rocks for rioters in Los Angeles. 'Rocks being dropped off in cages in LA for rioters,' the June 1 Facebook post says. 'Compliments of George Soros. America is laced with terrorist activities that are using a HORRIBLE SITUATION to terrorize our homes, businesses and cities. This is a warning to all my friends that these are not protesters. These are paid very dangerous people by George Soros. Don't think for a minute that you may not have to defend your family.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post includes four photos showing rocks in metal cages on the sidewalk. In one the images, the sign of a business across the street is visible: Monza Car. We looked for Monza Car in Los Angeles and found the street where the photos were taken - Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, Calif. Using Google Maps street view, you can see that the building closest to the rocks in the photo is Chabad of Sherman Oaks, a community center for Jews. The rocks don't appear in the Google Maps image. However, Chabad of Sherman Oaks responded to the rock rumors on its Facebook page on June 1. 'To all concerned neighbors and friends,' the post says. 'There were false pictures and videos going around today, claiming some bricks or rocks were placed at our center. Here is the truth: THESE ARE SECURITY BARRIERS and have been here for almost a year! Nevertheless to alleviate people's concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed (as can be seen in this picture). Stay safe, we are praying for you all, and may there only be goodness and peace in our community.' The post includes a photo of the barriers without rocks. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says Nancy Pelosi on Aug. 31 blocked members of Congress from reading aloud on the House floor the names of the 13 U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. | Contradiction | Following a House of Representatives session on Aug. 31, Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., tweeted that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats refused to read the names of the 13 U.S. service members who were killed in the airport bombing in Afghanistan. How badly do Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats want to cover up this Afghanistan debacle? They just blocked Members of Congress from reading the names of the service members who sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan last week. Don't you think our military deserves better?- Congressman Carlos A. Gimenez (@RepCarlos) August 31, 2021 'How badly do Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats want to cover up this Afghanistan debacle?' Gimenez wrote. 'They just blocked Members of Congress from reading the names of the service members who sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan last week. Don't you think our military deserves better?' The tweet gained widespread traction across social media, including in this Facebook post, which shared a screenshot of a news article touting the claim that Pelosi blocked the reading. A reader asked us if the claim was true. What the claim muddles is that Pelosi wasn't present at the session at all. A moment of silence to honor the 13 killed had been planned ahead of time and was held during the session. But session rules prohibited action on a new motion, such as one that Republicans say came to the floor requesting that the names be read. Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan presided over the meeting, the congressional record shows. Pelosi appointed Dingell to take her place that day as speaker pro tempore. Mackenzie Smith, spokesperson for Dingell, also confirmed to PolitiFact that Pelosi appointed Dingell as speaker pro tempore and that the meeting was a pro forma session. The session lasted about four minutes, according to the record and C-SPAN video. It included an opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence that lasted about 26 seconds during which those present in the chamber bowed their heads. At the end of the silence, Dingell looked down at the lectern to read aloud the adjourning script and then gaveled the session to an end, only lifting her eyes as she raised the gavel. The video on C-SPAN shows that people shouted out as she lifted and landed her gavel, at which point it appears someone was standing to be recognized. Pro forma sessions are known for being short. It's a type of session in which no votes are held, and no formal legislative business is conducted. That means there are no floor resolutions, which are motions to take an action, like the request to read the names of the 13 military members who died. There are also no free speech periods allowed in a pro forma session, said Donald Wolfensberger, congressional scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Bipartisan Policy Center fellow. The only exceptions are when majority and minority leaders from both parties have approved a matter of legislative business for the session. 'Any unilateral attempt by any member of either party to depart from that protocol would be gaveled as out of order by the presiding officer who is empowered to declare the House adjourned, without a separate motion or vote on adjournment necessary,' Wolfensberger said. According to Robyn Patterson, spokesperson for Pelosi, both parties agreed to a moment of silence for the fallen military members prior to the session, but House Republicans did not make a request to read the names until after the moment of silence was held on the House floor. 'Speaker Pelosi instructed the House of Representatives to hold a moment of silence to honor the brave service members killed in the heinous attack outside Kabul airport,' Patterson said. 'It's troubling that these individuals are using service member deaths as an opportunity to spread misinformation and score political points.' PolitiFact reached out to the House Republican Conference for comment, but did not hear back. However, a report from The Floridian, a conservative media site run by a former Republican congressional candidate, quoted Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who said that House Republicans requested to be recognized after the moment of silence to read the names of the service members. 'They did not acknowledge us, and just closed the House down,' Mast told The Floridian. Rep. Greg Steube of Florida tweeted a similar statement that the House Democrats refused to recognize Republican veterans on the House Floor. Patterson noted that Pelosi issued an Aug. 31 statement in which she listed the names of the 13 service members and said Congress was praying for 'every life lost.' PolitiFact reached out to the offices of Gimenez, Steube and Mast. None returned our requests for comment. | Our ruling A Facebook post shared a widespread claim that Pelosi and the Democrats blocked members of Congress on the House floor from reading the names of the 13 U.S. military service members who were killed in Afghanistan. Congressional records and C-SPAN video show that Pelosi was not at the session, but appointed Dingell to serve as speaker pro tempore that day. Pro forma sessions are brief, and do not allow votes or legislative business, like new resolutions from the floor, or free speech periods. The only exceptions are when majority and minority leaders from both parties have approved a matter of legislative business for the session. Pelosi's office said the Republican request wasn't raised with Democrats before the session. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100029-proof-15-84ee291efc3aae233cadf31023ea5b33.jpg"
]
|
Says Nancy Pelosi on Aug. 31 blocked members of Congress from reading aloud on the House floor the names of the 13 U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. | Contradiction | Following a House of Representatives session on Aug. 31, Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., tweeted that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats refused to read the names of the 13 U.S. service members who were killed in the airport bombing in Afghanistan. How badly do Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats want to cover up this Afghanistan debacle? They just blocked Members of Congress from reading the names of the service members who sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan last week. Don't you think our military deserves better?- Congressman Carlos A. Gimenez (@RepCarlos) August 31, 2021 'How badly do Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats want to cover up this Afghanistan debacle?' Gimenez wrote. 'They just blocked Members of Congress from reading the names of the service members who sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan last week. Don't you think our military deserves better?' The tweet gained widespread traction across social media, including in this Facebook post, which shared a screenshot of a news article touting the claim that Pelosi blocked the reading. A reader asked us if the claim was true. What the claim muddles is that Pelosi wasn't present at the session at all. A moment of silence to honor the 13 killed had been planned ahead of time and was held during the session. But session rules prohibited action on a new motion, such as one that Republicans say came to the floor requesting that the names be read. Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan presided over the meeting, the congressional record shows. Pelosi appointed Dingell to take her place that day as speaker pro tempore. Mackenzie Smith, spokesperson for Dingell, also confirmed to PolitiFact that Pelosi appointed Dingell as speaker pro tempore and that the meeting was a pro forma session. The session lasted about four minutes, according to the record and C-SPAN video. It included an opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence that lasted about 26 seconds during which those present in the chamber bowed their heads. At the end of the silence, Dingell looked down at the lectern to read aloud the adjourning script and then gaveled the session to an end, only lifting her eyes as she raised the gavel. The video on C-SPAN shows that people shouted out as she lifted and landed her gavel, at which point it appears someone was standing to be recognized. Pro forma sessions are known for being short. It's a type of session in which no votes are held, and no formal legislative business is conducted. That means there are no floor resolutions, which are motions to take an action, like the request to read the names of the 13 military members who died. There are also no free speech periods allowed in a pro forma session, said Donald Wolfensberger, congressional scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Bipartisan Policy Center fellow. The only exceptions are when majority and minority leaders from both parties have approved a matter of legislative business for the session. 'Any unilateral attempt by any member of either party to depart from that protocol would be gaveled as out of order by the presiding officer who is empowered to declare the House adjourned, without a separate motion or vote on adjournment necessary,' Wolfensberger said. According to Robyn Patterson, spokesperson for Pelosi, both parties agreed to a moment of silence for the fallen military members prior to the session, but House Republicans did not make a request to read the names until after the moment of silence was held on the House floor. 'Speaker Pelosi instructed the House of Representatives to hold a moment of silence to honor the brave service members killed in the heinous attack outside Kabul airport,' Patterson said. 'It's troubling that these individuals are using service member deaths as an opportunity to spread misinformation and score political points.' PolitiFact reached out to the House Republican Conference for comment, but did not hear back. However, a report from The Floridian, a conservative media site run by a former Republican congressional candidate, quoted Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who said that House Republicans requested to be recognized after the moment of silence to read the names of the service members. 'They did not acknowledge us, and just closed the House down,' Mast told The Floridian. Rep. Greg Steube of Florida tweeted a similar statement that the House Democrats refused to recognize Republican veterans on the House Floor. Patterson noted that Pelosi issued an Aug. 31 statement in which she listed the names of the 13 service members and said Congress was praying for 'every life lost.' PolitiFact reached out to the offices of Gimenez, Steube and Mast. None returned our requests for comment. | Our ruling A Facebook post shared a widespread claim that Pelosi and the Democrats blocked members of Congress on the House floor from reading the names of the 13 U.S. military service members who were killed in Afghanistan. Congressional records and C-SPAN video show that Pelosi was not at the session, but appointed Dingell to serve as speaker pro tempore that day. Pro forma sessions are brief, and do not allow votes or legislative business, like new resolutions from the floor, or free speech periods. The only exceptions are when majority and minority leaders from both parties have approved a matter of legislative business for the session. Pelosi's office said the Republican request wasn't raised with Democrats before the session. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100029-proof-15-84ee291efc3aae233cadf31023ea5b33.jpg"
]
|
Says a photo shows an ambushed Los Angeles police officer and that the NFL intends to 'honor and praise the organization' that stood outside of the hospital chanting, 'We hope she dies. | Contradiction | A Facebook user shared a post that says the National Football League is honoring an organization that chanted, 'We hope she dies,' outside the hospital where two ambushed Los Angeles deputies were undergoing surgery. The post included a photo of a person it said was the victim. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the name of supporting the police, this post feeds a narrative of racial and political division, and nothing about it is accurate - including the photo. On Sept. 12, a gunman walked up to a parked police car, opened fire and ran. Two sheriff deputies, a man and a woman, were badly injured. Anti-police protesters gathered outside the St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, Calif., where the two officers were being treated. Some protesters yelled, 'We hope they die.' With those basic details as context, everything else about the post is false. Here is the post's full text: 'Last night in California, a 6-year-old boy begged God to save his mother's life after she was ambushed and shot, unprovoked, while sitting in her police car. Today, the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside his mother's hospital chanting, 'we hope she dies.' Make no mistake, Anyone who watches football today, purchases NFL merchandise or supports these teams in any way has blood on their hands. Shame on you. #BackTheBlue' One of the deputies shot is a 31-year-old mother. The accompanying photo of the Facebook post is not her. It is of Breck Worsham, who promotes herself on the web as the Patriotic Blonde. On her Facebook page, Worsham disavowed the use of her picture. 'I was just made aware that a post has been circulated on social media using my photo as the officer who was shot in Compton, California over the weekend,' Worsham wrote Sept. 14. 'I don't know how that happened but it sickens me.' The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said that it hasn't released the names of either officer, so we don't know personal details, such as whether the woman has a young son. As a league, the NFL marked the movement against police killings of unarmed Black people by adding 'Lift every voice and sing,' a song known as the Black National Anthem, before the start of each game. Individual NFL teams and players marked the first day of the season in different ways. Some players took a knee as the national anthem played. Some wore shoes or shirts that said, 'End racism,' or 'No justice, no peace.' Both slogans are common within the Black Lives Matter movement, but in no way did any player or the NFL honor the protesters outside the Los Angeles hospital. The sheriff's department said it has tied no organization to the protesters who gathered outside the hospital. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Says a photo shows an ambushed Los Angeles police officer and that the NFL intends to 'honor and praise the organization' that stood outside of the hospital chanting, 'We hope she dies. | Contradiction | A Facebook user shared a post that says the National Football League is honoring an organization that chanted, 'We hope she dies,' outside the hospital where two ambushed Los Angeles deputies were undergoing surgery. The post included a photo of a person it said was the victim. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the name of supporting the police, this post feeds a narrative of racial and political division, and nothing about it is accurate - including the photo. On Sept. 12, a gunman walked up to a parked police car, opened fire and ran. Two sheriff deputies, a man and a woman, were badly injured. Anti-police protesters gathered outside the St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, Calif., where the two officers were being treated. Some protesters yelled, 'We hope they die.' With those basic details as context, everything else about the post is false. Here is the post's full text: 'Last night in California, a 6-year-old boy begged God to save his mother's life after she was ambushed and shot, unprovoked, while sitting in her police car. Today, the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside his mother's hospital chanting, 'we hope she dies.' Make no mistake, Anyone who watches football today, purchases NFL merchandise or supports these teams in any way has blood on their hands. Shame on you. #BackTheBlue' One of the deputies shot is a 31-year-old mother. The accompanying photo of the Facebook post is not her. It is of Breck Worsham, who promotes herself on the web as the Patriotic Blonde. On her Facebook page, Worsham disavowed the use of her picture. 'I was just made aware that a post has been circulated on social media using my photo as the officer who was shot in Compton, California over the weekend,' Worsham wrote Sept. 14. 'I don't know how that happened but it sickens me.' The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said that it hasn't released the names of either officer, so we don't know personal details, such as whether the woman has a young son. As a league, the NFL marked the movement against police killings of unarmed Black people by adding 'Lift every voice and sing,' a song known as the Black National Anthem, before the start of each game. Individual NFL teams and players marked the first day of the season in different ways. Some players took a knee as the national anthem played. Some wore shoes or shirts that said, 'End racism,' or 'No justice, no peace.' Both slogans are common within the Black Lives Matter movement, but in no way did any player or the NFL honor the protesters outside the Los Angeles hospital. The sheriff's department said it has tied no organization to the protesters who gathered outside the hospital. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Says a photo shows an ambushed Los Angeles police officer and that the NFL intends to 'honor and praise the organization' that stood outside of the hospital chanting, 'We hope she dies. | Contradiction | A Facebook user shared a post that says the National Football League is honoring an organization that chanted, 'We hope she dies,' outside the hospital where two ambushed Los Angeles deputies were undergoing surgery. The post included a photo of a person it said was the victim. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the name of supporting the police, this post feeds a narrative of racial and political division, and nothing about it is accurate - including the photo. On Sept. 12, a gunman walked up to a parked police car, opened fire and ran. Two sheriff deputies, a man and a woman, were badly injured. Anti-police protesters gathered outside the St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, Calif., where the two officers were being treated. Some protesters yelled, 'We hope they die.' With those basic details as context, everything else about the post is false. Here is the post's full text: 'Last night in California, a 6-year-old boy begged God to save his mother's life after she was ambushed and shot, unprovoked, while sitting in her police car. Today, the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside his mother's hospital chanting, 'we hope she dies.' Make no mistake, Anyone who watches football today, purchases NFL merchandise or supports these teams in any way has blood on their hands. Shame on you. #BackTheBlue' One of the deputies shot is a 31-year-old mother. The accompanying photo of the Facebook post is not her. It is of Breck Worsham, who promotes herself on the web as the Patriotic Blonde. On her Facebook page, Worsham disavowed the use of her picture. 'I was just made aware that a post has been circulated on social media using my photo as the officer who was shot in Compton, California over the weekend,' Worsham wrote Sept. 14. 'I don't know how that happened but it sickens me.' The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said that it hasn't released the names of either officer, so we don't know personal details, such as whether the woman has a young son. As a league, the NFL marked the movement against police killings of unarmed Black people by adding 'Lift every voice and sing,' a song known as the Black National Anthem, before the start of each game. Individual NFL teams and players marked the first day of the season in different ways. Some players took a knee as the national anthem played. Some wore shoes or shirts that said, 'End racism,' or 'No justice, no peace.' Both slogans are common within the Black Lives Matter movement, but in no way did any player or the NFL honor the protesters outside the Los Angeles hospital. The sheriff's department said it has tied no organization to the protesters who gathered outside the hospital. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
A spy plane was circling the building of the Arizona election audit. | Contradiction | The Republican-orchestrated audit of ballots cast in Arizona's Maricopa County is rife with conspiracy theories. The latest one involves spies in the sky. 'Spy Plane Identified Circling the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum Where the Election Audit Is Taking Place - What's Going On?' stated a May 3 headline on David Harris Jr.'s website. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post is wrong. Biden won Arizona by about 10,000 votes in November, flipping the state to the Democrats after Donald Trump's win in 2016. Maricopa County - the state's largest and home to the capital, Phoenix - found no abnormalities in earlier audits, but state Senate Republicans sought to pursue their own audit of the battleground county. Election experts nationwide, including Republicans, have said the audit lacks transparency and is unnecessary. The Facebook post provides no evidence to back up the claim that there was a spy plane circling the coliseum, the site of the audit of 2.1 million ballots. The Facebook post attributes the information to The Gateway Pundit, a source of inaccurate claims about the presidential election results. The Gateway Pundit wrote that it had received information that an airplane had been circling the coliseum. But the accompanying map showed the flight path wasn't above the coliseum, just nearby. The Gateway Pundit updated the story to say the airplane was registered to the city of Phoenix. The updated article included a response from Sgt. Maggie Cox, a Phoenix police spokesperson: 'This was brought to our attention by another media outlet. The article narrative is not accurate. While the maps do accurately represent our flights, both times ... the aircraft was on police calls that had nothing to do with the events at the Veteran Memorial Coliseum. Please update your news story.' Cox gave PolitiFact a similar statement. She said that one of the airplane calls was related to a stolen vehicle. The airplane 'was not over the coliseum,' Cox said. 'It has nothing to do with the events in the coliseum. It's not over the audit - I verified that with the air unit.' The police department's website says the air support unit flies about 8,000 hours a year and assists in pursuits by vehicle and foot, recovers stolen vehicles and executes mountain rescues. We found no evidence that a plane was deployed to spy on the audit. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why are Arizona Republicans auditing election results? RELATED: No, a quarter million fraudulent votes weren't uncovered in an Arizona election audit RELATED: No proof for pro-Trump conspiracy theory of secret watermarks on Ariz. ballots | We found no evidence that a plane was deployed to spy on the audit. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why are Arizona Republicans auditing election results? RELATED: No, a quarter million fraudulent votes weren't uncovered in an Arizona election audit RELATED: No proof for pro-Trump conspiracy theory of secret watermarks on Ariz. ballots | [
"100059-proof-11-97dd5a12a28161f4470a1b2ad17d29c3.jpg"
]
|
A spy plane was circling the building of the Arizona election audit. | Contradiction | The Republican-orchestrated audit of ballots cast in Arizona's Maricopa County is rife with conspiracy theories. The latest one involves spies in the sky. 'Spy Plane Identified Circling the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum Where the Election Audit Is Taking Place - What's Going On?' stated a May 3 headline on David Harris Jr.'s website. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post is wrong. Biden won Arizona by about 10,000 votes in November, flipping the state to the Democrats after Donald Trump's win in 2016. Maricopa County - the state's largest and home to the capital, Phoenix - found no abnormalities in earlier audits, but state Senate Republicans sought to pursue their own audit of the battleground county. Election experts nationwide, including Republicans, have said the audit lacks transparency and is unnecessary. The Facebook post provides no evidence to back up the claim that there was a spy plane circling the coliseum, the site of the audit of 2.1 million ballots. The Facebook post attributes the information to The Gateway Pundit, a source of inaccurate claims about the presidential election results. The Gateway Pundit wrote that it had received information that an airplane had been circling the coliseum. But the accompanying map showed the flight path wasn't above the coliseum, just nearby. The Gateway Pundit updated the story to say the airplane was registered to the city of Phoenix. The updated article included a response from Sgt. Maggie Cox, a Phoenix police spokesperson: 'This was brought to our attention by another media outlet. The article narrative is not accurate. While the maps do accurately represent our flights, both times ... the aircraft was on police calls that had nothing to do with the events at the Veteran Memorial Coliseum. Please update your news story.' Cox gave PolitiFact a similar statement. She said that one of the airplane calls was related to a stolen vehicle. The airplane 'was not over the coliseum,' Cox said. 'It has nothing to do with the events in the coliseum. It's not over the audit - I verified that with the air unit.' The police department's website says the air support unit flies about 8,000 hours a year and assists in pursuits by vehicle and foot, recovers stolen vehicles and executes mountain rescues. We found no evidence that a plane was deployed to spy on the audit. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why are Arizona Republicans auditing election results? RELATED: No, a quarter million fraudulent votes weren't uncovered in an Arizona election audit RELATED: No proof for pro-Trump conspiracy theory of secret watermarks on Ariz. ballots | We found no evidence that a plane was deployed to spy on the audit. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why are Arizona Republicans auditing election results? RELATED: No, a quarter million fraudulent votes weren't uncovered in an Arizona election audit RELATED: No proof for pro-Trump conspiracy theory of secret watermarks on Ariz. ballots | [
"100059-proof-11-97dd5a12a28161f4470a1b2ad17d29c3.jpg"
]
|
Says '132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' and President Trump might win Georgia as a result. | Contradiction | As Georgia became one of the most surprising swing states in the 2020 presidential election, it also took center stage in a number of baseless social media claims. 'BREAKING REPORT: 132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' announced a viral image shared on Facebook Nov. 8. 'BREAKING NEWS: President Donald J. Trump may win the state of Georgia after 132,000 ballots.' The post, which is a picture of two tweets, 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.) To say the ballots were 'identified as likely ineligible' is a huge leap from the facts, which are scarce. The claim appears to have originated with a tweet by Peoples Pundit, an account run by Richard Baris, who identifies himself as a data journalist and director of Big Data Poll. First, Baris said 'there are 132k CoA flags in Fulton County, alone,' referring to change of address flags in voter rolls, which implies that those voters might have been ineligible to vote in that county. Then he cited two queries of a Georgia voter database and included screenshots of both searches. One of the queries Baris ran was for Fulton County voters including people 'flagged' in the records for change of address, and the other query excluded people flagged for change of address. Baris' claim about potentially ineligible ballots is based on the number of 'unique individuals' listed for each query: the number is 842,486 when including those with a 'change of address flag' in the records, and 710,454 when excluding those who have a 'change of address flag,' a difference of 132,032. The screenshots do not include any detail such as links that would allow others to replicate the search or verify its results. Baris did not indicate that the information had been verified with or vetted by election officials, who in many cases during the 2020 election have offered reasonable explanations for theories being floated. Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez, director of external affairs for Fulton County government, told PolitiFact the claim is 'completely unsubstantiated.' A county spokeswoman also provided a statement saying, 'Fulton County is aware of allegations of 132,000 ballots being 'flagged.' These claims are simply false and baseless. Certain news organizations have circulated this information without contacting Fulton County for confirmation.' On Monday, Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, also said on CNN that there have not been 'any sort of credible examples' of voter fraud in Georgia. Georgia requires that those voting in person present a government-issued ID, WABE reported, and when voting by absentee ballot, a voter's signature must match the one on both the ballot application and voter registration card. Georgia's voter rolls were purged of 300,000 inactive voters last year, including 45,000 in Fulton County, according to WABE. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that '132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' and that President Trump might win Georgia as a result. There is no verified evidence that the ballots are ineligible. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says '132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' and President Trump might win Georgia as a result. | Contradiction | As Georgia became one of the most surprising swing states in the 2020 presidential election, it also took center stage in a number of baseless social media claims. 'BREAKING REPORT: 132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' announced a viral image shared on Facebook Nov. 8. 'BREAKING NEWS: President Donald J. Trump may win the state of Georgia after 132,000 ballots.' The post, which is a picture of two tweets, 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.) To say the ballots were 'identified as likely ineligible' is a huge leap from the facts, which are scarce. The claim appears to have originated with a tweet by Peoples Pundit, an account run by Richard Baris, who identifies himself as a data journalist and director of Big Data Poll. First, Baris said 'there are 132k CoA flags in Fulton County, alone,' referring to change of address flags in voter rolls, which implies that those voters might have been ineligible to vote in that county. Then he cited two queries of a Georgia voter database and included screenshots of both searches. One of the queries Baris ran was for Fulton County voters including people 'flagged' in the records for change of address, and the other query excluded people flagged for change of address. Baris' claim about potentially ineligible ballots is based on the number of 'unique individuals' listed for each query: the number is 842,486 when including those with a 'change of address flag' in the records, and 710,454 when excluding those who have a 'change of address flag,' a difference of 132,032. The screenshots do not include any detail such as links that would allow others to replicate the search or verify its results. Baris did not indicate that the information had been verified with or vetted by election officials, who in many cases during the 2020 election have offered reasonable explanations for theories being floated. Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez, director of external affairs for Fulton County government, told PolitiFact the claim is 'completely unsubstantiated.' A county spokeswoman also provided a statement saying, 'Fulton County is aware of allegations of 132,000 ballots being 'flagged.' These claims are simply false and baseless. Certain news organizations have circulated this information without contacting Fulton County for confirmation.' On Monday, Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, also said on CNN that there have not been 'any sort of credible examples' of voter fraud in Georgia. Georgia requires that those voting in person present a government-issued ID, WABE reported, and when voting by absentee ballot, a voter's signature must match the one on both the ballot application and voter registration card. Georgia's voter rolls were purged of 300,000 inactive voters last year, including 45,000 in Fulton County, according to WABE. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that '132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' and that President Trump might win Georgia as a result. There is no verified evidence that the ballots are ineligible. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says '132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' and President Trump might win Georgia as a result. | Contradiction | As Georgia became one of the most surprising swing states in the 2020 presidential election, it also took center stage in a number of baseless social media claims. 'BREAKING REPORT: 132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' announced a viral image shared on Facebook Nov. 8. 'BREAKING NEWS: President Donald J. Trump may win the state of Georgia after 132,000 ballots.' The post, which is a picture of two tweets, 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.) To say the ballots were 'identified as likely ineligible' is a huge leap from the facts, which are scarce. The claim appears to have originated with a tweet by Peoples Pundit, an account run by Richard Baris, who identifies himself as a data journalist and director of Big Data Poll. First, Baris said 'there are 132k CoA flags in Fulton County, alone,' referring to change of address flags in voter rolls, which implies that those voters might have been ineligible to vote in that county. Then he cited two queries of a Georgia voter database and included screenshots of both searches. One of the queries Baris ran was for Fulton County voters including people 'flagged' in the records for change of address, and the other query excluded people flagged for change of address. Baris' claim about potentially ineligible ballots is based on the number of 'unique individuals' listed for each query: the number is 842,486 when including those with a 'change of address flag' in the records, and 710,454 when excluding those who have a 'change of address flag,' a difference of 132,032. The screenshots do not include any detail such as links that would allow others to replicate the search or verify its results. Baris did not indicate that the information had been verified with or vetted by election officials, who in many cases during the 2020 election have offered reasonable explanations for theories being floated. Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez, director of external affairs for Fulton County government, told PolitiFact the claim is 'completely unsubstantiated.' A county spokeswoman also provided a statement saying, 'Fulton County is aware of allegations of 132,000 ballots being 'flagged.' These claims are simply false and baseless. Certain news organizations have circulated this information without contacting Fulton County for confirmation.' On Monday, Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, also said on CNN that there have not been 'any sort of credible examples' of voter fraud in Georgia. Georgia requires that those voting in person present a government-issued ID, WABE reported, and when voting by absentee ballot, a voter's signature must match the one on both the ballot application and voter registration card. Georgia's voter rolls were purged of 300,000 inactive voters last year, including 45,000 in Fulton County, according to WABE. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that '132,000 ballots in Fulton County, Ga., have been identified as likely ineligible,' and that President Trump might win Georgia as a result. There is no verified evidence that the ballots are ineligible. We rate this claim False. | []
|
In-N-Out cups say 'Let's go Brandon. | Contradiction | Joining a collection of doctored In-N-Out Burger cups that say things like 'Hail Satan,' 'Epstein did not kill himself' and, more recently, a derogatory dig against President Joe Biden is a new anti-Biden rallying cry. 'Let's go Brandon,' reads the bottom of an In-N-Out cup in a photo being shared on Facebook. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A reverse image search of all of these doctored photos shows that the original picture features the Bible verse John 3:16. It was posted on Flickr in 2011. The chain's CEO has said in an interview that her uncle put Bible verses on In-N-Out's cups and wrappers in the early 1990s. In addition to John 3:16 on the soda cup, the milkshake cup features Proverbs 3:5 and the burger wrappers have Revelation 3:20. As In-N-Out has drawn support from some people for refusing to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates in California, misinformation about the chain - and about the slogan 'let's go Brandon' - has spread online. Among other incorrect claims: that CNN reported the chain 'is the fast food of white supremacists' and that the Anti-Defamation League classified 'Let's go Brandon' as hate speech. We rate claims that this 'Let's go Brandon' cup is real False. | We rate claims that this 'Let's go Brandon' cup is real False. | []
|
'Rogue' Michigan official sent absentee ballots to 7.7 million people 'illegally and without authorization' ahead of the primaries and general election. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's crusade against voting by mail has put him at odds with the truth again. This time, he took aim at Michigan's latest effort to expand access to absentee ballots. 'Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election,' Trump tweeted May 20. 'This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!' Trump is wrong. Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced May 19 that her office was mailing all registered voters an application to vote by mail in the August and November elections, not a ballot. People who complete, sign and return the application would receive a ballot about six weeks before the election. The action follows a constitutional amendment to expand access to absentee ballots, which Michiganders supported overwhelmingly in a 2018 ballot issue. We emailed the White House and the Trump campaign to ask for the basis of his claim and did not get a reply. Trump deleted his tweet about Michigan on the same day and then wrote a new tweet with mostly the same wording, referring to 'absentee ballot applications' but still alleging an illegal' action by Benson. Trump won Michigan narrowly in 2016 and has criticized efforts to expand voting by mail this year, falsely linking it to ballot fraud and arguing that it disfavors Republicans. Benson, a Democrat elected in 2018, responded to Trump on Twitter and in a written statement. 'Hi I also have a name, it's Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia,' Benson tweeted. Hi! 👋🏼 I also have a name, it's Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia. https://t.co/kBsu4nHvOy- Jocelyn Benson (@JocelynBenson) May 20, 2020 All four of those states indeed sent voters applications to receive absentee ballots for their primaries. Amid the pandemic, some state governments have already changed laws and policies to expand the option of voting by mail. At the local level, some elections officials in heavily Democratic and Republican counties around the country are mailing voters information on how to apply for an absentee ballot. Election officials say voting by mail can help reduce crowds at the polls and enforce social distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Michigan voters backed changes in 2018 A recent amendment to Michigan's state constitution guarantees all registered voters the option to vote by absentee ballot for any reason. Michigan voters backed the amendment overwhelmingly in a 2018 ballot issue, along with several other measures to expand voter participation. That means all voters have the right to vote by mail, 'so it is within the Secretary's authority, as the chief elections administrator in the state, to mail applications,' Benson's spokeswoman, Tracy Wimmer, told PolitiFact. Various entities, including both major parties and advocacy organizations, routinely send absentee-ballot applications in Michigan. Nothing in state law prohibits the secretary of state from mailing out absentee-ballot applications, said Sharon Dolente, a voting rights strategist for the ACLU of Michigan. 'The Secretary of State in Michigan has broad responsibilities for managing elections and it fits within her authority,' she said. Election officials in Michigan have faced legal challenges to their authority to mail out absentee ballot applications automatically. But Benson's office said those cases involved actions by local clerks, not the secretary of state, who is the state's chief election officer. And those challenges were decided more than a decade before the constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to an absentee ballot. The absentee ballot voter application allows voters to check a box to receive absentee ballots for all future elections and has spaces for voters to provide their addresses for receiving the August and November election ballots. Of Michigan's 7.7 million registered voters, about 1.3 million are on a 'permanent absentee voter' list, which means their local election clerk automatically mails them applications ahead of every election, Benson wrote in her May 19 press release. It will cost the state about $4.5 million to mail out the applications to every voter, and the state is paying for that through the federal CARES Act. In the May 5 local elections in Michigan, the majority of voters cast ballots by mail. RELATED: How battleground states are preparing for the pandemic election's massive increase in voting by mail It's unclear what authority Trump thinks he has to 'hold up funding to Michigan.' The CARES Act and 2020 Help America Vote Act funds made clear federal money could be used to handle increased voting by mail, said Myrna Perez, director of voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center at New York University School of Law. | Our ruling Trump tweeted that Michigan's 'rogue' secretary of state sent absentee ballots to 7.7 million people 'illegally and without authorization' ahead of the primaries and the general election. Trump is wrong. The day before his tweet, the Michigan secretary of state announced that she was sending an application for absentee ballots to registered voters, not an actual ballot. The state constitution guarantees registered voters access to an absentee ballot. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. | [
"100117-proof-00-251f7546509d9202833266e4d19a30fa.jpg"
]
|
'Rogue' Michigan official sent absentee ballots to 7.7 million people 'illegally and without authorization' ahead of the primaries and general election. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's crusade against voting by mail has put him at odds with the truth again. This time, he took aim at Michigan's latest effort to expand access to absentee ballots. 'Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election,' Trump tweeted May 20. 'This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!' Trump is wrong. Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced May 19 that her office was mailing all registered voters an application to vote by mail in the August and November elections, not a ballot. People who complete, sign and return the application would receive a ballot about six weeks before the election. The action follows a constitutional amendment to expand access to absentee ballots, which Michiganders supported overwhelmingly in a 2018 ballot issue. We emailed the White House and the Trump campaign to ask for the basis of his claim and did not get a reply. Trump deleted his tweet about Michigan on the same day and then wrote a new tweet with mostly the same wording, referring to 'absentee ballot applications' but still alleging an illegal' action by Benson. Trump won Michigan narrowly in 2016 and has criticized efforts to expand voting by mail this year, falsely linking it to ballot fraud and arguing that it disfavors Republicans. Benson, a Democrat elected in 2018, responded to Trump on Twitter and in a written statement. 'Hi I also have a name, it's Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia,' Benson tweeted. Hi! 👋🏼 I also have a name, it's Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia. https://t.co/kBsu4nHvOy- Jocelyn Benson (@JocelynBenson) May 20, 2020 All four of those states indeed sent voters applications to receive absentee ballots for their primaries. Amid the pandemic, some state governments have already changed laws and policies to expand the option of voting by mail. At the local level, some elections officials in heavily Democratic and Republican counties around the country are mailing voters information on how to apply for an absentee ballot. Election officials say voting by mail can help reduce crowds at the polls and enforce social distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Michigan voters backed changes in 2018 A recent amendment to Michigan's state constitution guarantees all registered voters the option to vote by absentee ballot for any reason. Michigan voters backed the amendment overwhelmingly in a 2018 ballot issue, along with several other measures to expand voter participation. That means all voters have the right to vote by mail, 'so it is within the Secretary's authority, as the chief elections administrator in the state, to mail applications,' Benson's spokeswoman, Tracy Wimmer, told PolitiFact. Various entities, including both major parties and advocacy organizations, routinely send absentee-ballot applications in Michigan. Nothing in state law prohibits the secretary of state from mailing out absentee-ballot applications, said Sharon Dolente, a voting rights strategist for the ACLU of Michigan. 'The Secretary of State in Michigan has broad responsibilities for managing elections and it fits within her authority,' she said. Election officials in Michigan have faced legal challenges to their authority to mail out absentee ballot applications automatically. But Benson's office said those cases involved actions by local clerks, not the secretary of state, who is the state's chief election officer. And those challenges were decided more than a decade before the constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to an absentee ballot. The absentee ballot voter application allows voters to check a box to receive absentee ballots for all future elections and has spaces for voters to provide their addresses for receiving the August and November election ballots. Of Michigan's 7.7 million registered voters, about 1.3 million are on a 'permanent absentee voter' list, which means their local election clerk automatically mails them applications ahead of every election, Benson wrote in her May 19 press release. It will cost the state about $4.5 million to mail out the applications to every voter, and the state is paying for that through the federal CARES Act. In the May 5 local elections in Michigan, the majority of voters cast ballots by mail. RELATED: How battleground states are preparing for the pandemic election's massive increase in voting by mail It's unclear what authority Trump thinks he has to 'hold up funding to Michigan.' The CARES Act and 2020 Help America Vote Act funds made clear federal money could be used to handle increased voting by mail, said Myrna Perez, director of voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center at New York University School of Law. | Our ruling Trump tweeted that Michigan's 'rogue' secretary of state sent absentee ballots to 7.7 million people 'illegally and without authorization' ahead of the primaries and the general election. Trump is wrong. The day before his tweet, the Michigan secretary of state announced that she was sending an application for absentee ballots to registered voters, not an actual ballot. The state constitution guarantees registered voters access to an absentee ballot. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. | [
"100117-proof-00-251f7546509d9202833266e4d19a30fa.jpg"
]
|
'Rogue' Michigan official sent absentee ballots to 7.7 million people 'illegally and without authorization' ahead of the primaries and general election. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's crusade against voting by mail has put him at odds with the truth again. This time, he took aim at Michigan's latest effort to expand access to absentee ballots. 'Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election,' Trump tweeted May 20. 'This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!' Trump is wrong. Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced May 19 that her office was mailing all registered voters an application to vote by mail in the August and November elections, not a ballot. People who complete, sign and return the application would receive a ballot about six weeks before the election. The action follows a constitutional amendment to expand access to absentee ballots, which Michiganders supported overwhelmingly in a 2018 ballot issue. We emailed the White House and the Trump campaign to ask for the basis of his claim and did not get a reply. Trump deleted his tweet about Michigan on the same day and then wrote a new tweet with mostly the same wording, referring to 'absentee ballot applications' but still alleging an illegal' action by Benson. Trump won Michigan narrowly in 2016 and has criticized efforts to expand voting by mail this year, falsely linking it to ballot fraud and arguing that it disfavors Republicans. Benson, a Democrat elected in 2018, responded to Trump on Twitter and in a written statement. 'Hi I also have a name, it's Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia,' Benson tweeted. Hi! 👋🏼 I also have a name, it's Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia. https://t.co/kBsu4nHvOy- Jocelyn Benson (@JocelynBenson) May 20, 2020 All four of those states indeed sent voters applications to receive absentee ballots for their primaries. Amid the pandemic, some state governments have already changed laws and policies to expand the option of voting by mail. At the local level, some elections officials in heavily Democratic and Republican counties around the country are mailing voters information on how to apply for an absentee ballot. Election officials say voting by mail can help reduce crowds at the polls and enforce social distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Michigan voters backed changes in 2018 A recent amendment to Michigan's state constitution guarantees all registered voters the option to vote by absentee ballot for any reason. Michigan voters backed the amendment overwhelmingly in a 2018 ballot issue, along with several other measures to expand voter participation. That means all voters have the right to vote by mail, 'so it is within the Secretary's authority, as the chief elections administrator in the state, to mail applications,' Benson's spokeswoman, Tracy Wimmer, told PolitiFact. Various entities, including both major parties and advocacy organizations, routinely send absentee-ballot applications in Michigan. Nothing in state law prohibits the secretary of state from mailing out absentee-ballot applications, said Sharon Dolente, a voting rights strategist for the ACLU of Michigan. 'The Secretary of State in Michigan has broad responsibilities for managing elections and it fits within her authority,' she said. Election officials in Michigan have faced legal challenges to their authority to mail out absentee ballot applications automatically. But Benson's office said those cases involved actions by local clerks, not the secretary of state, who is the state's chief election officer. And those challenges were decided more than a decade before the constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to an absentee ballot. The absentee ballot voter application allows voters to check a box to receive absentee ballots for all future elections and has spaces for voters to provide their addresses for receiving the August and November election ballots. Of Michigan's 7.7 million registered voters, about 1.3 million are on a 'permanent absentee voter' list, which means their local election clerk automatically mails them applications ahead of every election, Benson wrote in her May 19 press release. It will cost the state about $4.5 million to mail out the applications to every voter, and the state is paying for that through the federal CARES Act. In the May 5 local elections in Michigan, the majority of voters cast ballots by mail. RELATED: How battleground states are preparing for the pandemic election's massive increase in voting by mail It's unclear what authority Trump thinks he has to 'hold up funding to Michigan.' The CARES Act and 2020 Help America Vote Act funds made clear federal money could be used to handle increased voting by mail, said Myrna Perez, director of voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center at New York University School of Law. | Our ruling Trump tweeted that Michigan's 'rogue' secretary of state sent absentee ballots to 7.7 million people 'illegally and without authorization' ahead of the primaries and the general election. Trump is wrong. The day before his tweet, the Michigan secretary of state announced that she was sending an application for absentee ballots to registered voters, not an actual ballot. The state constitution guarantees registered voters access to an absentee ballot. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. | [
"100117-proof-00-251f7546509d9202833266e4d19a30fa.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support abortion 'up to the moment of birth. | Contradiction | In his debate appearance Oct. 7, Vice President Mike Pence sought to spotlight the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates over abortion rights. 'I'm pro-life, I don't apologize for it. This is another one of those cases where there's such a dramatic contrast,' Pence said in Salt Lake City. 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late term abortion.' During the debate, Harris shook her head as Pence made his claim, but she did not directly address his statement. Before his claim, Harris had said she would 'always fight for a woman's right to make a decision about her own body.' On taxpayer funding, both Biden and Harris say they want to get rid of the Hyde Amendment, a provision routinely added to health budget bills that bars federal funding for abortions. Biden came out against it in 2019. Readers asked PolitiFact to fact-check the other part of the claim, whether the Democratic nominees support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Biden and Harris have not said they support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They say they support Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion while giving states the authority to regulate it after a certain point. They also say they would work to codify the ruling into law and try to stop state laws that violate provisions of the case. Biden's campaign specified to PolitiFact that he supports Roe - as amended by another 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. Some experts say that case actually broadened states' rights to regulate abortions, and that support for either of those cases does not amount to support for abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Pence's spokesperson said that his claim is backed by Biden's overall support for Roe and his plan to defend and codify it. A law professor and director of a center that opposes abortions said that Doe vs. Bolton, a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court companion case to Roe, should also be considered. She said that case has a broad health exception for abortions that makes Pence's claim fair. Experts agreed on this: Many people, including politicians, don't have a complete understanding of the provisions of court cases on abortion. 'Part of why this is such a mess is because different people mean different things' when they talk about abortion-related U.S. Supreme Court cases, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University. 'There's not an established popular understanding of the court cases.' The rulings are complex, Ziegler said, and Pence and Biden may be focusing on different aspects of them. While an abortion opponent may interpret the cases as allowing abortions 'up to the moment of birth,' supporters of abortion rights may not see it that way, she said. Still, when talking colloquially about support for Roe, most people mean recognizing the existence of a right to have an abortion, or not criminalizing it, Zeigler said. Supporting the rulings in Roe, Doe or Casey is not the same as supporting abortion 'up to the moment of birth,' she said. Roe vs. Wade Roe vs. Wade recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, but it also allowed states to restrict abortions - including banning them altogether - after the point of fetal viability, except when the life or health of the woman is at stake, said Darren Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Florida. He said that case did not specify a precise time for viability, but 24 weeks' gestation has widely been used in medicine and law. In 2016, there were 623,471 legal induced abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 1.2% happened at 21 weeks' gestation or later, the CDC said. Roe allows states to restrict or ban abortions once a fetus is viable, Hutchinson said, so when opponents of abortion rights invoke the term 'up to the moment of birth,' they are generally referring to how court cases treat exceptions to those restrictions during that period. Doe vs. Bolton Doe vs. Bolton allows doctors to consider a wide range of factors when determining whether an abortion is for health reasons, said Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor and director of the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. A doctor may make a decision 'in the light of all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient,' that case said. 'Because it was a companion case and directly referenced in Roe vs. Wade, I believe it is fair to say that it supports abortion up to the moment of birth, given the breadth of the health exception,' Collett said. Collette said that Biden's support for Roe should also be read in the context of the Democratic Party's platform. That platform says a Biden administration would seek to 'overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to women's reproductive health and rights, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment and protecting and codifying the right to reproductive freedom.' She also argued that Democratic bills propose standards that would 'virtually eliminate abortion restrictions' sought by states. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey Other experts said it's important to not overlook the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. There's a tendency to use Roe as shorthand when talking about keeping abortion legal, but the Casey ruling recognized a state's interest in pregnancy at all stages, said Mindy Jane Roseman, director of the Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women's Rights at Yale Law School. Before fetal viability, the state has an interest in making sure a woman is informed of her options and that any abortion procedures are safe, Roseman said. 'After viability, the state can prohibit abortions except where a woman's life is endangered, and possibly where her health is at grave risk,' she said. Casey allowed states to regulate abortion throughout the pregnancy, so long as the state laws do not impose an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to an abortion. The ruling also said that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions. Harris' Senate record Pence's spokesperson also flagged a February Senate procedural vote on a bill to ban abortion after about 20 weeks' gestation - earlier than traditional measures of fetal viability, an expert said. Harris was among Democrats who voted against ending debate on the proposal, a move that effectively stopped the bill's progress. 'The only exceptions in the bill were for life-saving abortions or when a pregnancy resulted from rape or incest,' Hutchinson said, and the Supreme Court 'has consistently held that laws categorically banning abortions after viability must have life and health exceptions.' Harris has sought to have that standard written into law. She is a co-sponsor of a bill seeking to establish a statutory right for health care providers to provide 'abortion care free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans.' The Center for Reproductive Rights said the bill would prohibit states from imposing post-viability bans that do not make exceptions for a woman's health or life. There hasn't been a vote on that bill. Biden's campaign sent PolitiFact links to votes Biden cast as a senator in the 1990s and 2000s in support of banning 'partial-birth abortions.' That term refers generally to an abortion procedure where the fetus is removed intact from a woman's body. | Our ruling Pence said Biden and Harris support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Biden and Harris have not said they support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They say they support the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion and allowed states to regulate it after fetal viability. They also say they are against state laws that conflict with the case, and would work to codify the ruling into law. One expert said that Democrats' intent to codify Roe could preempt state laws restricting abortion, and that a related case has a health exception broad enough to allow abortions 'up to the moment of birth.' But several other experts said that supporting Roe or related cases is not the same as supporting abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They said that generally, people who support Roe mean they support the existence of a right to have an abortion or to not criminalize it. Pence's claim creates a wrong impression of Biden's and Harris' statements and of the common interpretation of cases that affirmed abortion rights. We rate his claim False. | [
"100137-proof-07-95bc50491057e8ea1b20e192ba514bca.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support abortion 'up to the moment of birth. | Contradiction | In his debate appearance Oct. 7, Vice President Mike Pence sought to spotlight the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates over abortion rights. 'I'm pro-life, I don't apologize for it. This is another one of those cases where there's such a dramatic contrast,' Pence said in Salt Lake City. 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late term abortion.' During the debate, Harris shook her head as Pence made his claim, but she did not directly address his statement. Before his claim, Harris had said she would 'always fight for a woman's right to make a decision about her own body.' On taxpayer funding, both Biden and Harris say they want to get rid of the Hyde Amendment, a provision routinely added to health budget bills that bars federal funding for abortions. Biden came out against it in 2019. Readers asked PolitiFact to fact-check the other part of the claim, whether the Democratic nominees support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Biden and Harris have not said they support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They say they support Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion while giving states the authority to regulate it after a certain point. They also say they would work to codify the ruling into law and try to stop state laws that violate provisions of the case. Biden's campaign specified to PolitiFact that he supports Roe - as amended by another 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. Some experts say that case actually broadened states' rights to regulate abortions, and that support for either of those cases does not amount to support for abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Pence's spokesperson said that his claim is backed by Biden's overall support for Roe and his plan to defend and codify it. A law professor and director of a center that opposes abortions said that Doe vs. Bolton, a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court companion case to Roe, should also be considered. She said that case has a broad health exception for abortions that makes Pence's claim fair. Experts agreed on this: Many people, including politicians, don't have a complete understanding of the provisions of court cases on abortion. 'Part of why this is such a mess is because different people mean different things' when they talk about abortion-related U.S. Supreme Court cases, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University. 'There's not an established popular understanding of the court cases.' The rulings are complex, Ziegler said, and Pence and Biden may be focusing on different aspects of them. While an abortion opponent may interpret the cases as allowing abortions 'up to the moment of birth,' supporters of abortion rights may not see it that way, she said. Still, when talking colloquially about support for Roe, most people mean recognizing the existence of a right to have an abortion, or not criminalizing it, Zeigler said. Supporting the rulings in Roe, Doe or Casey is not the same as supporting abortion 'up to the moment of birth,' she said. Roe vs. Wade Roe vs. Wade recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, but it also allowed states to restrict abortions - including banning them altogether - after the point of fetal viability, except when the life or health of the woman is at stake, said Darren Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Florida. He said that case did not specify a precise time for viability, but 24 weeks' gestation has widely been used in medicine and law. In 2016, there were 623,471 legal induced abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 1.2% happened at 21 weeks' gestation or later, the CDC said. Roe allows states to restrict or ban abortions once a fetus is viable, Hutchinson said, so when opponents of abortion rights invoke the term 'up to the moment of birth,' they are generally referring to how court cases treat exceptions to those restrictions during that period. Doe vs. Bolton Doe vs. Bolton allows doctors to consider a wide range of factors when determining whether an abortion is for health reasons, said Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor and director of the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. A doctor may make a decision 'in the light of all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient,' that case said. 'Because it was a companion case and directly referenced in Roe vs. Wade, I believe it is fair to say that it supports abortion up to the moment of birth, given the breadth of the health exception,' Collett said. Collette said that Biden's support for Roe should also be read in the context of the Democratic Party's platform. That platform says a Biden administration would seek to 'overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to women's reproductive health and rights, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment and protecting and codifying the right to reproductive freedom.' She also argued that Democratic bills propose standards that would 'virtually eliminate abortion restrictions' sought by states. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey Other experts said it's important to not overlook the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. There's a tendency to use Roe as shorthand when talking about keeping abortion legal, but the Casey ruling recognized a state's interest in pregnancy at all stages, said Mindy Jane Roseman, director of the Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women's Rights at Yale Law School. Before fetal viability, the state has an interest in making sure a woman is informed of her options and that any abortion procedures are safe, Roseman said. 'After viability, the state can prohibit abortions except where a woman's life is endangered, and possibly where her health is at grave risk,' she said. Casey allowed states to regulate abortion throughout the pregnancy, so long as the state laws do not impose an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to an abortion. The ruling also said that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions. Harris' Senate record Pence's spokesperson also flagged a February Senate procedural vote on a bill to ban abortion after about 20 weeks' gestation - earlier than traditional measures of fetal viability, an expert said. Harris was among Democrats who voted against ending debate on the proposal, a move that effectively stopped the bill's progress. 'The only exceptions in the bill were for life-saving abortions or when a pregnancy resulted from rape or incest,' Hutchinson said, and the Supreme Court 'has consistently held that laws categorically banning abortions after viability must have life and health exceptions.' Harris has sought to have that standard written into law. She is a co-sponsor of a bill seeking to establish a statutory right for health care providers to provide 'abortion care free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans.' The Center for Reproductive Rights said the bill would prohibit states from imposing post-viability bans that do not make exceptions for a woman's health or life. There hasn't been a vote on that bill. Biden's campaign sent PolitiFact links to votes Biden cast as a senator in the 1990s and 2000s in support of banning 'partial-birth abortions.' That term refers generally to an abortion procedure where the fetus is removed intact from a woman's body. | Our ruling Pence said Biden and Harris support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Biden and Harris have not said they support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They say they support the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion and allowed states to regulate it after fetal viability. They also say they are against state laws that conflict with the case, and would work to codify the ruling into law. One expert said that Democrats' intent to codify Roe could preempt state laws restricting abortion, and that a related case has a health exception broad enough to allow abortions 'up to the moment of birth.' But several other experts said that supporting Roe or related cases is not the same as supporting abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They said that generally, people who support Roe mean they support the existence of a right to have an abortion or to not criminalize it. Pence's claim creates a wrong impression of Biden's and Harris' statements and of the common interpretation of cases that affirmed abortion rights. We rate his claim False. | [
"100137-proof-07-95bc50491057e8ea1b20e192ba514bca.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support abortion 'up to the moment of birth. | Contradiction | In his debate appearance Oct. 7, Vice President Mike Pence sought to spotlight the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates over abortion rights. 'I'm pro-life, I don't apologize for it. This is another one of those cases where there's such a dramatic contrast,' Pence said in Salt Lake City. 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late term abortion.' During the debate, Harris shook her head as Pence made his claim, but she did not directly address his statement. Before his claim, Harris had said she would 'always fight for a woman's right to make a decision about her own body.' On taxpayer funding, both Biden and Harris say they want to get rid of the Hyde Amendment, a provision routinely added to health budget bills that bars federal funding for abortions. Biden came out against it in 2019. Readers asked PolitiFact to fact-check the other part of the claim, whether the Democratic nominees support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Biden and Harris have not said they support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They say they support Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion while giving states the authority to regulate it after a certain point. They also say they would work to codify the ruling into law and try to stop state laws that violate provisions of the case. Biden's campaign specified to PolitiFact that he supports Roe - as amended by another 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. Some experts say that case actually broadened states' rights to regulate abortions, and that support for either of those cases does not amount to support for abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Pence's spokesperson said that his claim is backed by Biden's overall support for Roe and his plan to defend and codify it. A law professor and director of a center that opposes abortions said that Doe vs. Bolton, a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court companion case to Roe, should also be considered. She said that case has a broad health exception for abortions that makes Pence's claim fair. Experts agreed on this: Many people, including politicians, don't have a complete understanding of the provisions of court cases on abortion. 'Part of why this is such a mess is because different people mean different things' when they talk about abortion-related U.S. Supreme Court cases, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University. 'There's not an established popular understanding of the court cases.' The rulings are complex, Ziegler said, and Pence and Biden may be focusing on different aspects of them. While an abortion opponent may interpret the cases as allowing abortions 'up to the moment of birth,' supporters of abortion rights may not see it that way, she said. Still, when talking colloquially about support for Roe, most people mean recognizing the existence of a right to have an abortion, or not criminalizing it, Zeigler said. Supporting the rulings in Roe, Doe or Casey is not the same as supporting abortion 'up to the moment of birth,' she said. Roe vs. Wade Roe vs. Wade recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, but it also allowed states to restrict abortions - including banning them altogether - after the point of fetal viability, except when the life or health of the woman is at stake, said Darren Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Florida. He said that case did not specify a precise time for viability, but 24 weeks' gestation has widely been used in medicine and law. In 2016, there were 623,471 legal induced abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 1.2% happened at 21 weeks' gestation or later, the CDC said. Roe allows states to restrict or ban abortions once a fetus is viable, Hutchinson said, so when opponents of abortion rights invoke the term 'up to the moment of birth,' they are generally referring to how court cases treat exceptions to those restrictions during that period. Doe vs. Bolton Doe vs. Bolton allows doctors to consider a wide range of factors when determining whether an abortion is for health reasons, said Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor and director of the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. A doctor may make a decision 'in the light of all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient,' that case said. 'Because it was a companion case and directly referenced in Roe vs. Wade, I believe it is fair to say that it supports abortion up to the moment of birth, given the breadth of the health exception,' Collett said. Collette said that Biden's support for Roe should also be read in the context of the Democratic Party's platform. That platform says a Biden administration would seek to 'overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to women's reproductive health and rights, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment and protecting and codifying the right to reproductive freedom.' She also argued that Democratic bills propose standards that would 'virtually eliminate abortion restrictions' sought by states. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey Other experts said it's important to not overlook the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. There's a tendency to use Roe as shorthand when talking about keeping abortion legal, but the Casey ruling recognized a state's interest in pregnancy at all stages, said Mindy Jane Roseman, director of the Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women's Rights at Yale Law School. Before fetal viability, the state has an interest in making sure a woman is informed of her options and that any abortion procedures are safe, Roseman said. 'After viability, the state can prohibit abortions except where a woman's life is endangered, and possibly where her health is at grave risk,' she said. Casey allowed states to regulate abortion throughout the pregnancy, so long as the state laws do not impose an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to an abortion. The ruling also said that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions. Harris' Senate record Pence's spokesperson also flagged a February Senate procedural vote on a bill to ban abortion after about 20 weeks' gestation - earlier than traditional measures of fetal viability, an expert said. Harris was among Democrats who voted against ending debate on the proposal, a move that effectively stopped the bill's progress. 'The only exceptions in the bill were for life-saving abortions or when a pregnancy resulted from rape or incest,' Hutchinson said, and the Supreme Court 'has consistently held that laws categorically banning abortions after viability must have life and health exceptions.' Harris has sought to have that standard written into law. She is a co-sponsor of a bill seeking to establish a statutory right for health care providers to provide 'abortion care free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans.' The Center for Reproductive Rights said the bill would prohibit states from imposing post-viability bans that do not make exceptions for a woman's health or life. There hasn't been a vote on that bill. Biden's campaign sent PolitiFact links to votes Biden cast as a senator in the 1990s and 2000s in support of banning 'partial-birth abortions.' That term refers generally to an abortion procedure where the fetus is removed intact from a woman's body. | Our ruling Pence said Biden and Harris support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' Biden and Harris have not said they support abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They say they support the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion and allowed states to regulate it after fetal viability. They also say they are against state laws that conflict with the case, and would work to codify the ruling into law. One expert said that Democrats' intent to codify Roe could preempt state laws restricting abortion, and that a related case has a health exception broad enough to allow abortions 'up to the moment of birth.' But several other experts said that supporting Roe or related cases is not the same as supporting abortion 'up to the moment of birth.' They said that generally, people who support Roe mean they support the existence of a right to have an abortion or to not criminalize it. Pence's claim creates a wrong impression of Biden's and Harris' statements and of the common interpretation of cases that affirmed abortion rights. We rate his claim False. | [
"100137-proof-07-95bc50491057e8ea1b20e192ba514bca.jpg"
]
|
Nazi Germany's Hermann Göring worked to 'defund and eliminate the police departments so that they would not interfere with his Brown Shirts. | Contradiction | Conservative Facebook and Instagram accounts are criticizing calls to defund the police by comparing them to Nazi Germany. A June 14 post from an Instagram account called Republican Army claims that, after Adolf Hitler appointed Hermann Göring as interior minister in 1933, Göring worked to 'defund and eliminate the police departments so that they would not interfere with his Brown Shirts.' 'The Brown Shirt's (sic) mission was to riot, burn, beat up and kill citizens in an effort to sway the elections to ensure their National Socialist agenda,' reads text in the image, which includes a photo of men in uniform blocking the entrance to a building. 'Now today's American socialist leaders want to defund and eliminate the police? Is history repeating itself?' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) It has thousands of likes, and several similar posts have been shared by other Instagram and Facebook users - including at least one candidate running for Senate. (Screenshot from Instagram) Since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in late May, demonstrators around the country have protested against police brutality and discrimination against black Americans. Some activists have called to 'defund the police.' Did Hitler - who oversaw the murder of millions of Jews and other marginalized groups during the Holocaust - call for a similar action? We opened our history books to investigate. The Instagram post is inaccurate. While the Nazis reorganized German police forces, it had nothing to do with elections - and they did not defund or eliminate police departments. The photo in the post shows Nazis blocking Jews from entering the University of Vienna in 1938. 'There was literally no movement ever to defund or eliminate police departments in Nazi Germany,' said Waitman Beorn, a senior lecturer in history at Northumbria University, in a Twitter thread about the post. 'The terminology of 'defunding the police' has no analogy there.' How the Nazis reorganized German police First, let's review some facts about Göring, Hitler's rise to power and the 'Brownshirts.' Göring was a high-ranking Nazi official and one of Hitler's closest allies. He is credited with helping to create the Nazi police state in Germany. Göring joined the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party in 1922. Hitler, who had assumed control of the party one year prior, gave Göring command of the Brownshirts or 'Storm Troopers,' officially known as the Sturmabteilung (SA). The paramilitary organization was outfitted in brown uniforms and tasked with protecting party meetings, intimidating voters and assaulting political opponents. In 1932, after the Nazis won 230 seats in the Reichstag, Göring was elected president of the German legislative body. But Paul von Hindenburg, president of the Weimar Republic, was reluctant to appoint Hitler as chancellor. That changed in January 1933, when - after a series of negotiations - Hitler was appointed head of state. After Hitler became chancellor, he appointed Göring to his cabinet and, later, interior minister of Prussia - not of the entire country, as the Instagram post implies. And instead of eliminating police forces, he created a new one. Göring used his position to Nazify the Prussian police and establish the Gestapo. The political police force was tasked with eliminating opposition to the party and later worked in tandem with the Schutzstaffel (SS) to deport Jews to concentration camps. 'This had ZERO to do with elections. There were no more free elections after 1933,' Beorn said in his Twitter thread. RELATED: No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust In February 1933, Göring authorized the appointment of the SA and the SS as auxiliary police personnel, which co-opted the Brownshirts into the regular police force. Simultaneously, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, similarly reorganized the police of the remaining German states. In April 1933, the Nazis passed a law that allowed state interior ministries to purge police personnel, which led to the firing of 'non-Aryan' officers and those who had opposed the Nazis. That strategy - while it did fundamentally change the nature of policing in Germany in the lead-up to World War II - was not akin to defunding and eliminating police departments. 'The very moment the Nazis were in power in each of the German states, they could simply change personnel as well as policies in local police departments,' said Thomas Weber, a history and international affairs professor at the University of Aberdeen who has authored several books about Hitler. 'This meant that the Nazis had full control over police departments the moment they took over the state government in which that particular police department lay.' 'It would thus simply have made no sense for the Nazis to defund or eliminate police departments, as they already had full control over them.' What 'defund the police' means in 2020 'Defund the police' has become a rallying cry for some activists protesting police brutality against black Americans. But the phrase means different things to different people. In a June 8 'Ask Me Anything' thread on Reddit, Kailee Scales, managing director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, said the group is calling for 'divestment in police in order to support more teachers, mental health and restorative services, and community resilience departments, social workers, and government resource liaisons.' 'I know that sounds like a lot to take in, but simply, it is the idea of creating the 'American Dream' for all - less cops on streets and better schools and social programming,' she said in the thread. The argument for defunding the police goes like this: Many police departments across the country have large budgets. Other departments, such as those that oversee public health and family services, have smaller budgets. Some activists say that, by shifting money from police departments to other parts of municipal government, violence against black Americans would go down. Meanwhile, some are calling for police departments to be abolished altogether. In Minneapolis, where Floyd died after a white police officer kneeled on his neck, most city council members have pledged to dismantle the police department. 'Decades of police reform efforts have proved that the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed and will never be accountable for its actions,' council members said at a June 7 meeting. 'We are here today to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new, transformative model for cultivating safety in Minneapolis.' RELATED: 'Defund the police' movement: What do activists mean by that? However, the details are still up in the air. Council President Lisa Bender tweeted that the police department would be replaced 'with a transformative new model of public safety.' But she has also said that, while she doesn't want to invest in more policing, the idea of having no police department 'is certainly not' in the short-term plan. Regardless, both abolishing and defunding the police are very different from Hitler and Göring's strategy of Nazifying the police in 1930s Germany. However, the distinction comes with a caveat. 'When the Nazis came to power, they eliminated police unions, as they viewed unions of policemen as anti-Nazi institutions,' Weber said. 'So the Nazis did defund and eliminate police unions in 1933, but they certainly did not defund and eliminate police departments.' | Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Nazi's defunded and eliminated police departments in Germany. That's wrong. In reality, the Nazis relied on police forces to maintain control of Germany and commit genocide in the lead-up to World War II. That is very different from today's calls to 'defund the police,' which can mean anything from divesting from police departments to abolishing the police altogether. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100139-proof-07-fc6915f03119d33c4cbf201f47979c51.jpg"
]
|
Nazi Germany's Hermann Göring worked to 'defund and eliminate the police departments so that they would not interfere with his Brown Shirts. | Contradiction | Conservative Facebook and Instagram accounts are criticizing calls to defund the police by comparing them to Nazi Germany. A June 14 post from an Instagram account called Republican Army claims that, after Adolf Hitler appointed Hermann Göring as interior minister in 1933, Göring worked to 'defund and eliminate the police departments so that they would not interfere with his Brown Shirts.' 'The Brown Shirt's (sic) mission was to riot, burn, beat up and kill citizens in an effort to sway the elections to ensure their National Socialist agenda,' reads text in the image, which includes a photo of men in uniform blocking the entrance to a building. 'Now today's American socialist leaders want to defund and eliminate the police? Is history repeating itself?' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) It has thousands of likes, and several similar posts have been shared by other Instagram and Facebook users - including at least one candidate running for Senate. (Screenshot from Instagram) Since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in late May, demonstrators around the country have protested against police brutality and discrimination against black Americans. Some activists have called to 'defund the police.' Did Hitler - who oversaw the murder of millions of Jews and other marginalized groups during the Holocaust - call for a similar action? We opened our history books to investigate. The Instagram post is inaccurate. While the Nazis reorganized German police forces, it had nothing to do with elections - and they did not defund or eliminate police departments. The photo in the post shows Nazis blocking Jews from entering the University of Vienna in 1938. 'There was literally no movement ever to defund or eliminate police departments in Nazi Germany,' said Waitman Beorn, a senior lecturer in history at Northumbria University, in a Twitter thread about the post. 'The terminology of 'defunding the police' has no analogy there.' How the Nazis reorganized German police First, let's review some facts about Göring, Hitler's rise to power and the 'Brownshirts.' Göring was a high-ranking Nazi official and one of Hitler's closest allies. He is credited with helping to create the Nazi police state in Germany. Göring joined the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party in 1922. Hitler, who had assumed control of the party one year prior, gave Göring command of the Brownshirts or 'Storm Troopers,' officially known as the Sturmabteilung (SA). The paramilitary organization was outfitted in brown uniforms and tasked with protecting party meetings, intimidating voters and assaulting political opponents. In 1932, after the Nazis won 230 seats in the Reichstag, Göring was elected president of the German legislative body. But Paul von Hindenburg, president of the Weimar Republic, was reluctant to appoint Hitler as chancellor. That changed in January 1933, when - after a series of negotiations - Hitler was appointed head of state. After Hitler became chancellor, he appointed Göring to his cabinet and, later, interior minister of Prussia - not of the entire country, as the Instagram post implies. And instead of eliminating police forces, he created a new one. Göring used his position to Nazify the Prussian police and establish the Gestapo. The political police force was tasked with eliminating opposition to the party and later worked in tandem with the Schutzstaffel (SS) to deport Jews to concentration camps. 'This had ZERO to do with elections. There were no more free elections after 1933,' Beorn said in his Twitter thread. RELATED: No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust In February 1933, Göring authorized the appointment of the SA and the SS as auxiliary police personnel, which co-opted the Brownshirts into the regular police force. Simultaneously, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, similarly reorganized the police of the remaining German states. In April 1933, the Nazis passed a law that allowed state interior ministries to purge police personnel, which led to the firing of 'non-Aryan' officers and those who had opposed the Nazis. That strategy - while it did fundamentally change the nature of policing in Germany in the lead-up to World War II - was not akin to defunding and eliminating police departments. 'The very moment the Nazis were in power in each of the German states, they could simply change personnel as well as policies in local police departments,' said Thomas Weber, a history and international affairs professor at the University of Aberdeen who has authored several books about Hitler. 'This meant that the Nazis had full control over police departments the moment they took over the state government in which that particular police department lay.' 'It would thus simply have made no sense for the Nazis to defund or eliminate police departments, as they already had full control over them.' What 'defund the police' means in 2020 'Defund the police' has become a rallying cry for some activists protesting police brutality against black Americans. But the phrase means different things to different people. In a June 8 'Ask Me Anything' thread on Reddit, Kailee Scales, managing director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, said the group is calling for 'divestment in police in order to support more teachers, mental health and restorative services, and community resilience departments, social workers, and government resource liaisons.' 'I know that sounds like a lot to take in, but simply, it is the idea of creating the 'American Dream' for all - less cops on streets and better schools and social programming,' she said in the thread. The argument for defunding the police goes like this: Many police departments across the country have large budgets. Other departments, such as those that oversee public health and family services, have smaller budgets. Some activists say that, by shifting money from police departments to other parts of municipal government, violence against black Americans would go down. Meanwhile, some are calling for police departments to be abolished altogether. In Minneapolis, where Floyd died after a white police officer kneeled on his neck, most city council members have pledged to dismantle the police department. 'Decades of police reform efforts have proved that the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed and will never be accountable for its actions,' council members said at a June 7 meeting. 'We are here today to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new, transformative model for cultivating safety in Minneapolis.' RELATED: 'Defund the police' movement: What do activists mean by that? However, the details are still up in the air. Council President Lisa Bender tweeted that the police department would be replaced 'with a transformative new model of public safety.' But she has also said that, while she doesn't want to invest in more policing, the idea of having no police department 'is certainly not' in the short-term plan. Regardless, both abolishing and defunding the police are very different from Hitler and Göring's strategy of Nazifying the police in 1930s Germany. However, the distinction comes with a caveat. 'When the Nazis came to power, they eliminated police unions, as they viewed unions of policemen as anti-Nazi institutions,' Weber said. 'So the Nazis did defund and eliminate police unions in 1933, but they certainly did not defund and eliminate police departments.' | Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Nazi's defunded and eliminated police departments in Germany. That's wrong. In reality, the Nazis relied on police forces to maintain control of Germany and commit genocide in the lead-up to World War II. That is very different from today's calls to 'defund the police,' which can mean anything from divesting from police departments to abolishing the police altogether. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100139-proof-07-fc6915f03119d33c4cbf201f47979c51.jpg"
]
|
Nazi Germany's Hermann Göring worked to 'defund and eliminate the police departments so that they would not interfere with his Brown Shirts. | Contradiction | Conservative Facebook and Instagram accounts are criticizing calls to defund the police by comparing them to Nazi Germany. A June 14 post from an Instagram account called Republican Army claims that, after Adolf Hitler appointed Hermann Göring as interior minister in 1933, Göring worked to 'defund and eliminate the police departments so that they would not interfere with his Brown Shirts.' 'The Brown Shirt's (sic) mission was to riot, burn, beat up and kill citizens in an effort to sway the elections to ensure their National Socialist agenda,' reads text in the image, which includes a photo of men in uniform blocking the entrance to a building. 'Now today's American socialist leaders want to defund and eliminate the police? Is history repeating itself?' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) It has thousands of likes, and several similar posts have been shared by other Instagram and Facebook users - including at least one candidate running for Senate. (Screenshot from Instagram) Since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in late May, demonstrators around the country have protested against police brutality and discrimination against black Americans. Some activists have called to 'defund the police.' Did Hitler - who oversaw the murder of millions of Jews and other marginalized groups during the Holocaust - call for a similar action? We opened our history books to investigate. The Instagram post is inaccurate. While the Nazis reorganized German police forces, it had nothing to do with elections - and they did not defund or eliminate police departments. The photo in the post shows Nazis blocking Jews from entering the University of Vienna in 1938. 'There was literally no movement ever to defund or eliminate police departments in Nazi Germany,' said Waitman Beorn, a senior lecturer in history at Northumbria University, in a Twitter thread about the post. 'The terminology of 'defunding the police' has no analogy there.' How the Nazis reorganized German police First, let's review some facts about Göring, Hitler's rise to power and the 'Brownshirts.' Göring was a high-ranking Nazi official and one of Hitler's closest allies. He is credited with helping to create the Nazi police state in Germany. Göring joined the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party in 1922. Hitler, who had assumed control of the party one year prior, gave Göring command of the Brownshirts or 'Storm Troopers,' officially known as the Sturmabteilung (SA). The paramilitary organization was outfitted in brown uniforms and tasked with protecting party meetings, intimidating voters and assaulting political opponents. In 1932, after the Nazis won 230 seats in the Reichstag, Göring was elected president of the German legislative body. But Paul von Hindenburg, president of the Weimar Republic, was reluctant to appoint Hitler as chancellor. That changed in January 1933, when - after a series of negotiations - Hitler was appointed head of state. After Hitler became chancellor, he appointed Göring to his cabinet and, later, interior minister of Prussia - not of the entire country, as the Instagram post implies. And instead of eliminating police forces, he created a new one. Göring used his position to Nazify the Prussian police and establish the Gestapo. The political police force was tasked with eliminating opposition to the party and later worked in tandem with the Schutzstaffel (SS) to deport Jews to concentration camps. 'This had ZERO to do with elections. There were no more free elections after 1933,' Beorn said in his Twitter thread. RELATED: No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust In February 1933, Göring authorized the appointment of the SA and the SS as auxiliary police personnel, which co-opted the Brownshirts into the regular police force. Simultaneously, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, similarly reorganized the police of the remaining German states. In April 1933, the Nazis passed a law that allowed state interior ministries to purge police personnel, which led to the firing of 'non-Aryan' officers and those who had opposed the Nazis. That strategy - while it did fundamentally change the nature of policing in Germany in the lead-up to World War II - was not akin to defunding and eliminating police departments. 'The very moment the Nazis were in power in each of the German states, they could simply change personnel as well as policies in local police departments,' said Thomas Weber, a history and international affairs professor at the University of Aberdeen who has authored several books about Hitler. 'This meant that the Nazis had full control over police departments the moment they took over the state government in which that particular police department lay.' 'It would thus simply have made no sense for the Nazis to defund or eliminate police departments, as they already had full control over them.' What 'defund the police' means in 2020 'Defund the police' has become a rallying cry for some activists protesting police brutality against black Americans. But the phrase means different things to different people. In a June 8 'Ask Me Anything' thread on Reddit, Kailee Scales, managing director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, said the group is calling for 'divestment in police in order to support more teachers, mental health and restorative services, and community resilience departments, social workers, and government resource liaisons.' 'I know that sounds like a lot to take in, but simply, it is the idea of creating the 'American Dream' for all - less cops on streets and better schools and social programming,' she said in the thread. The argument for defunding the police goes like this: Many police departments across the country have large budgets. Other departments, such as those that oversee public health and family services, have smaller budgets. Some activists say that, by shifting money from police departments to other parts of municipal government, violence against black Americans would go down. Meanwhile, some are calling for police departments to be abolished altogether. In Minneapolis, where Floyd died after a white police officer kneeled on his neck, most city council members have pledged to dismantle the police department. 'Decades of police reform efforts have proved that the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed and will never be accountable for its actions,' council members said at a June 7 meeting. 'We are here today to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new, transformative model for cultivating safety in Minneapolis.' RELATED: 'Defund the police' movement: What do activists mean by that? However, the details are still up in the air. Council President Lisa Bender tweeted that the police department would be replaced 'with a transformative new model of public safety.' But she has also said that, while she doesn't want to invest in more policing, the idea of having no police department 'is certainly not' in the short-term plan. Regardless, both abolishing and defunding the police are very different from Hitler and Göring's strategy of Nazifying the police in 1930s Germany. However, the distinction comes with a caveat. 'When the Nazis came to power, they eliminated police unions, as they viewed unions of policemen as anti-Nazi institutions,' Weber said. 'So the Nazis did defund and eliminate police unions in 1933, but they certainly did not defund and eliminate police departments.' | Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Nazi's defunded and eliminated police departments in Germany. That's wrong. In reality, the Nazis relied on police forces to maintain control of Germany and commit genocide in the lead-up to World War II. That is very different from today's calls to 'defund the police,' which can mean anything from divesting from police departments to abolishing the police altogether. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100139-proof-07-fc6915f03119d33c4cbf201f47979c51.jpg"
]
|
Voting machines didn't work in heavily GOP areas for the Georgia runoff elections, leaving some voters unable to cast ballots. | Contradiction | A few hours after the start of in-person, election-day voting in Georgia's Jan. 5 runoffs, claims surfaced that voting machines in heavily Republican areas weren't working. The implication: that the problems disadvantaged Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, who were being challenged by Democrats Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock. The Democrats won both races, effectively shifting control of the Senate from the GOP to the Democrats. Some of the claims appeared in an article, widely shared on Facebook, from TrendingPolitics, including an assertion that some voters said they were 'unable to cast their votes in the Georgia runoff election.' TrendingPolitics describes itself as a pro-Donald Trump website that provides conservative commentary on the news. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claims amount to isolated instances of temporary machine breakdowns, some reported secondhand, with no evidence that ballots that presumably contained votes for Perdue and Loeffler were not counted. The article included tweets from two people who said vote-scanning machines were not working when they cast ballots in what they described as heavily Republican parts of Georgia. One man tweeted that he filled out a ballot in Newton County, Ga., which he described as heavily Republican. Ossoff and Warnock both won the county handily. The county seat of Newton is Covington, which is about 35 miles southeast of Atlanta. The man tweeted that he was told by a poll worker that the machine wasn't working and that the ballot would be scanned after the machine was fixed. The man later tweeted that when his wife voted later, the machine was working. Philip Johnson, chairman of the Newton County elections board, said a scanner at one precinct jammed, but another scanner was used and there were no delays in scanning ballots. At another precinct, about 100 ballots had to be put in an emergency ballot box while the one scanner was repaired and the ballots were scanned after the scanner was repaired. Another Twitter user cited in the article tweeted that the scanners 'are down' where he cast his ballot in Sandy Springs in what he described as a heavily GOP precinct of Fulton County, where Atlanta is the county seat. He suggested that meant Democrats would be in charge of putting his ballot, with votes for Perdue and Loeffler, into the scanner. Ossoff and Warnock won the county overwhelmingly. Fulton County spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez said there could have been isolated instances of scanning machines not working temporarily, and of poll workers needing to feed ballots into the scanners after the scanners were fixed. Corbitt-Dominguez said this is a common method for handling small numbers of ballots that could not be scanned by voters themselves. But she said she heard of no widespread problems in any precincts. Another Twitter exchange cited in the article said ballots were being placed in boxes in Paulding County to be fed into scanners once they were repaired. The Paulding County seat is in Dallas, about 30 miles northwest of Atlanta. Perdue and Loeffler won the county overwhelmingly. Paulding County's election director did not return a call seeking comment. But Paulding County reported that one ballot scanner stopped working and voters placed their ballots in an 'emergency ballot box' until the scanner was replaced about 30 minutes later, when scanning resumed, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 'Voting did not cease at any time and all ballots have been tabulated,' a statement from the county said. The TrendingPolitics article also included a clip of an interview that John Fredericks, a conservative radio host in Virginia, did on the morning of Jan. 5 on Stephen Bannon's 'War Room Pandemic' podcast. Fredericks said multiple callers to his show said that around 10 a.m. scanning machines in three of the largest Republican precincts were not working and that poll workers told voters that once the machines were fixed, the workers would put the ballots into the machines. In the clip, Fredericks did not identify the location of precincts. He did not reply to our emails. President Trump made similar claims in a tweet shortly after noon on Jan. 5: 'Reports are coming out of the 12th Congressional District of Georgia that Dominion Machines are not working in certain Republican Strongholds for over an hour. Ballots are being left in lock boxes, hopefully they count them. Thank you Congressman @RickAllen!' Georgia voting system implementation manager Gabriel Sterling, a Republican, responded to Trump by tweeting: 'And this issue in Columbia Co. was resolved hours ago and our office informed the public about it in real time. The votes of everyone will be protected and counted. Sorry you received old intel Mr. President.' In a statement, the Georgia secretary of state's office said that in Columbia County outside of Augusta, parts of which are in the 12th congressional district, there were programming problems that required some votes to be cast on emergency ballots, but that the problems were resolved by 10 a.m. Perdue and Loeffler won Columbia County overwhelmingly. There were no indications of widespread problems. Asked at a news conference on Jan. 6 if there was any evidence of fraud or irregularities, Sterling said no. 'We've seen nothing widespread, we've seen nothing that seems real in any way, shape or form, quite honestly.' He also said: 'Nobody was complaining about lines. Nobody's saying they were disenfranchised. Everybody who wanted to vote had the opportunity to vote and we feel very proud of that fact.' The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that despite a turnout of 1.2 million voters, there were a limited number of glitches, with voters waiting in line an average of one to five minutes to cast a ballot. Election protection lawyers reported no major problems with voting machines or extended waits at polling places, according to the New York Times. | Our ruling An article shared on Facebook claimed that during the Jan. 5 Georgia runoff elections voting machines didn't work in some heavily Republican areas and that some voters were kept from casting their votes. President Trump shared similar reports about broken machines. Election officials said that while there may have been some isolated mechanical issues, the matters were resolved and there is no indication that votes were not cast as a result of those problems. Election protection lawyers, local media and Georgia's secretary of state all confirmed there was no indication of widespread problems. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"100182-proof-01-0e849c974c1556ef703759244fd966b7.jpg"
]
|
Voting machines didn't work in heavily GOP areas for the Georgia runoff elections, leaving some voters unable to cast ballots. | Contradiction | A few hours after the start of in-person, election-day voting in Georgia's Jan. 5 runoffs, claims surfaced that voting machines in heavily Republican areas weren't working. The implication: that the problems disadvantaged Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, who were being challenged by Democrats Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock. The Democrats won both races, effectively shifting control of the Senate from the GOP to the Democrats. Some of the claims appeared in an article, widely shared on Facebook, from TrendingPolitics, including an assertion that some voters said they were 'unable to cast their votes in the Georgia runoff election.' TrendingPolitics describes itself as a pro-Donald Trump website that provides conservative commentary on the news. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claims amount to isolated instances of temporary machine breakdowns, some reported secondhand, with no evidence that ballots that presumably contained votes for Perdue and Loeffler were not counted. The article included tweets from two people who said vote-scanning machines were not working when they cast ballots in what they described as heavily Republican parts of Georgia. One man tweeted that he filled out a ballot in Newton County, Ga., which he described as heavily Republican. Ossoff and Warnock both won the county handily. The county seat of Newton is Covington, which is about 35 miles southeast of Atlanta. The man tweeted that he was told by a poll worker that the machine wasn't working and that the ballot would be scanned after the machine was fixed. The man later tweeted that when his wife voted later, the machine was working. Philip Johnson, chairman of the Newton County elections board, said a scanner at one precinct jammed, but another scanner was used and there were no delays in scanning ballots. At another precinct, about 100 ballots had to be put in an emergency ballot box while the one scanner was repaired and the ballots were scanned after the scanner was repaired. Another Twitter user cited in the article tweeted that the scanners 'are down' where he cast his ballot in Sandy Springs in what he described as a heavily GOP precinct of Fulton County, where Atlanta is the county seat. He suggested that meant Democrats would be in charge of putting his ballot, with votes for Perdue and Loeffler, into the scanner. Ossoff and Warnock won the county overwhelmingly. Fulton County spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez said there could have been isolated instances of scanning machines not working temporarily, and of poll workers needing to feed ballots into the scanners after the scanners were fixed. Corbitt-Dominguez said this is a common method for handling small numbers of ballots that could not be scanned by voters themselves. But she said she heard of no widespread problems in any precincts. Another Twitter exchange cited in the article said ballots were being placed in boxes in Paulding County to be fed into scanners once they were repaired. The Paulding County seat is in Dallas, about 30 miles northwest of Atlanta. Perdue and Loeffler won the county overwhelmingly. Paulding County's election director did not return a call seeking comment. But Paulding County reported that one ballot scanner stopped working and voters placed their ballots in an 'emergency ballot box' until the scanner was replaced about 30 minutes later, when scanning resumed, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 'Voting did not cease at any time and all ballots have been tabulated,' a statement from the county said. The TrendingPolitics article also included a clip of an interview that John Fredericks, a conservative radio host in Virginia, did on the morning of Jan. 5 on Stephen Bannon's 'War Room Pandemic' podcast. Fredericks said multiple callers to his show said that around 10 a.m. scanning machines in three of the largest Republican precincts were not working and that poll workers told voters that once the machines were fixed, the workers would put the ballots into the machines. In the clip, Fredericks did not identify the location of precincts. He did not reply to our emails. President Trump made similar claims in a tweet shortly after noon on Jan. 5: 'Reports are coming out of the 12th Congressional District of Georgia that Dominion Machines are not working in certain Republican Strongholds for over an hour. Ballots are being left in lock boxes, hopefully they count them. Thank you Congressman @RickAllen!' Georgia voting system implementation manager Gabriel Sterling, a Republican, responded to Trump by tweeting: 'And this issue in Columbia Co. was resolved hours ago and our office informed the public about it in real time. The votes of everyone will be protected and counted. Sorry you received old intel Mr. President.' In a statement, the Georgia secretary of state's office said that in Columbia County outside of Augusta, parts of which are in the 12th congressional district, there were programming problems that required some votes to be cast on emergency ballots, but that the problems were resolved by 10 a.m. Perdue and Loeffler won Columbia County overwhelmingly. There were no indications of widespread problems. Asked at a news conference on Jan. 6 if there was any evidence of fraud or irregularities, Sterling said no. 'We've seen nothing widespread, we've seen nothing that seems real in any way, shape or form, quite honestly.' He also said: 'Nobody was complaining about lines. Nobody's saying they were disenfranchised. Everybody who wanted to vote had the opportunity to vote and we feel very proud of that fact.' The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that despite a turnout of 1.2 million voters, there were a limited number of glitches, with voters waiting in line an average of one to five minutes to cast a ballot. Election protection lawyers reported no major problems with voting machines or extended waits at polling places, according to the New York Times. | Our ruling An article shared on Facebook claimed that during the Jan. 5 Georgia runoff elections voting machines didn't work in some heavily Republican areas and that some voters were kept from casting their votes. President Trump shared similar reports about broken machines. Election officials said that while there may have been some isolated mechanical issues, the matters were resolved and there is no indication that votes were not cast as a result of those problems. Election protection lawyers, local media and Georgia's secretary of state all confirmed there was no indication of widespread problems. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"100182-proof-01-0e849c974c1556ef703759244fd966b7.jpg"
]
|
Says the Denver Broncos signed Colin Kaepernick. | Contradiction | The Denver Broncos football team found themselves without a quarterback for their recent game against the New Orleans Saints after the league discovered some of the team's players had been maskless around another player who tested positive for COVID-19. But the Broncos didn't quickly sign former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to step in, as a recent Facebook post claimed. 'Breaking,' the post said. 'Broncos signing Colin Kaepernick.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl XLVII in 2013, has not played in the NFL since the 2016 season, when he began protesting police violence against Black Americans by sitting or kneeling during the pregame national anthem. In 2019, he and the NFL settled a grievance alleging that the league and team owners colluded to keep him out of football. For the Nov. 29 game against the Saints, the same COVID-19 protocols that prevented four eligible quarterbacks on the Broncos active roster from playing also precluded the team from signing Kaepernick. News broke on Nov. 28 that the quarterbacks wouldn't be able to play in the game the next day. It would have taken at least six days for Kaepernick to be eligible to play under the NFL's COVID-19 rules. New players must remain in isolation for six days before joining a team. Kendall Hinton, a practice squad receiver for the Broncos, filled in as quarterback on Nov. 29. The Broncos lost to the Saints 31-3. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Says the Denver Broncos signed Colin Kaepernick. | Contradiction | The Denver Broncos football team found themselves without a quarterback for their recent game against the New Orleans Saints after the league discovered some of the team's players had been maskless around another player who tested positive for COVID-19. But the Broncos didn't quickly sign former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to step in, as a recent Facebook post claimed. 'Breaking,' the post said. 'Broncos signing Colin Kaepernick.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl XLVII in 2013, has not played in the NFL since the 2016 season, when he began protesting police violence against Black Americans by sitting or kneeling during the pregame national anthem. In 2019, he and the NFL settled a grievance alleging that the league and team owners colluded to keep him out of football. For the Nov. 29 game against the Saints, the same COVID-19 protocols that prevented four eligible quarterbacks on the Broncos active roster from playing also precluded the team from signing Kaepernick. News broke on Nov. 28 that the quarterbacks wouldn't be able to play in the game the next day. It would have taken at least six days for Kaepernick to be eligible to play under the NFL's COVID-19 rules. New players must remain in isolation for six days before joining a team. Kendall Hinton, a practice squad receiver for the Broncos, filled in as quarterback on Nov. 29. The Broncos lost to the Saints 31-3. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Says the Denver Broncos signed Colin Kaepernick. | Contradiction | The Denver Broncos football team found themselves without a quarterback for their recent game against the New Orleans Saints after the league discovered some of the team's players had been maskless around another player who tested positive for COVID-19. But the Broncos didn't quickly sign former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to step in, as a recent Facebook post claimed. 'Breaking,' the post said. 'Broncos signing Colin Kaepernick.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl XLVII in 2013, has not played in the NFL since the 2016 season, when he began protesting police violence against Black Americans by sitting or kneeling during the pregame national anthem. In 2019, he and the NFL settled a grievance alleging that the league and team owners colluded to keep him out of football. For the Nov. 29 game against the Saints, the same COVID-19 protocols that prevented four eligible quarterbacks on the Broncos active roster from playing also precluded the team from signing Kaepernick. News broke on Nov. 28 that the quarterbacks wouldn't be able to play in the game the next day. It would have taken at least six days for Kaepernick to be eligible to play under the NFL's COVID-19 rules. New players must remain in isolation for six days before joining a team. Kendall Hinton, a practice squad receiver for the Broncos, filled in as quarterback on Nov. 29. The Broncos lost to the Saints 31-3. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Photo shows Barack Obama and George Clooney in a compromising situation with a child. | Contradiction | An old photo of former President Barack Obama, the actor George Clooney, and another person on a boat is being presented on Facebook without context, making it subject to intense speculation of some social media users who think something sinister is happening. 'What was going on then?' one person wrote in an image that's being shared on Facebook. 'Why does it look like Clooney is zipping his pants back up? Why does #Obama look stunned? Who is that very young girl? Let's RT widely and find out the truth! #pedopredators #EpsteinsBlackBook.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) But the photo doesn't capture Obama and Clooney at the scene of a crime, along with a young girl. Contrary to the caption, Clooney appears to be briefly touching his stomach, not zipping up his pants. Rather, it shows the men and someone else - we don't know who - on a boat on Lake Como in Italy with several other people, including Michelle Obama, Amal Clooney, Malia Obama, and other unidentified guests in 2019. In photos published by the Daily Mail, different angles of the scene reveal that there are other people nearby but not in view in the image being shared on Facebook. Several media outlets covered the boat ride, including USA Today and The Today Show. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Photo shows Barack Obama and George Clooney in a compromising situation with a child. | Contradiction | An old photo of former President Barack Obama, the actor George Clooney, and another person on a boat is being presented on Facebook without context, making it subject to intense speculation of some social media users who think something sinister is happening. 'What was going on then?' one person wrote in an image that's being shared on Facebook. 'Why does it look like Clooney is zipping his pants back up? Why does #Obama look stunned? Who is that very young girl? Let's RT widely and find out the truth! #pedopredators #EpsteinsBlackBook.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) But the photo doesn't capture Obama and Clooney at the scene of a crime, along with a young girl. Contrary to the caption, Clooney appears to be briefly touching his stomach, not zipping up his pants. Rather, it shows the men and someone else - we don't know who - on a boat on Lake Como in Italy with several other people, including Michelle Obama, Amal Clooney, Malia Obama, and other unidentified guests in 2019. In photos published by the Daily Mail, different angles of the scene reveal that there are other people nearby but not in view in the image being shared on Facebook. Several media outlets covered the boat ride, including USA Today and The Today Show. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Pennsylvania just banned alcohol sales. | Contradiction | Communities around the country have tightened coronavirus restrictions as COVID-19 cases surge. But recent claims on social media that Pennsylvania is banning alcohol sales leave out some important details. 'Pennsylvania just banned alcohol sales,' one post says. 'What does that have to do with the virus? It's about control.' This overstates a recent rule the state imposed to slow the spread of COVID-19, and leads readers to believe that Pennsylvania has banned all alcohol sales. That's wrong. People can't drink at bars or restaurants on the day before Thanksgiving, but they can buy alcohol to take home and drink all they want. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine announced new coronavirus restrictions on Nov. 23, including banning the sale of some (but not all) alcohol on the day before Thanksgiving. Starting at 5 p.m. on Nov. 25 until 8 a.m. on Nov. 26, bars, restaurants and private catered events cannot sell alcohol for people to drink on site. Businesses can still sell alcohol, including cocktails, to go. Liquor stores can also sell alcohol during normal business hours. The day before Thanksgiving is one of the busiest nights of the year for the service industry, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, and many bar and restaurant owners were upset by this new mandate. Wolf warned about a heightened risk of infection through close contact as people drink together the night before a holiday. We rate this Facebook post Mostly False. | We rate this Facebook post Mostly False. | []
|
'Pennsylvania just banned alcohol sales. | Contradiction | Communities around the country have tightened coronavirus restrictions as COVID-19 cases surge. But recent claims on social media that Pennsylvania is banning alcohol sales leave out some important details. 'Pennsylvania just banned alcohol sales,' one post says. 'What does that have to do with the virus? It's about control.' This overstates a recent rule the state imposed to slow the spread of COVID-19, and leads readers to believe that Pennsylvania has banned all alcohol sales. That's wrong. People can't drink at bars or restaurants on the day before Thanksgiving, but they can buy alcohol to take home and drink all they want. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine announced new coronavirus restrictions on Nov. 23, including banning the sale of some (but not all) alcohol on the day before Thanksgiving. Starting at 5 p.m. on Nov. 25 until 8 a.m. on Nov. 26, bars, restaurants and private catered events cannot sell alcohol for people to drink on site. Businesses can still sell alcohol, including cocktails, to go. Liquor stores can also sell alcohol during normal business hours. The day before Thanksgiving is one of the busiest nights of the year for the service industry, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, and many bar and restaurant owners were upset by this new mandate. Wolf warned about a heightened risk of infection through close contact as people drink together the night before a holiday. We rate this Facebook post Mostly False. | We rate this Facebook post Mostly False. | []
|
'While voters were distracted, (Gov. J.B.) Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies. | Contradiction | A new group affiliated with a national Republican opposition research organization is targeting Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker over the perennially fraught issue of lawmaker pay. Illinois Rising Action, a nonprofit launched in March by America Rising Squared, is out with an ad accusing Pritzker of putting the interests of politicians above those of working families during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'While voters were distracted, Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies,' a narrator says halfway through the 30-second spot, which includes boilerplate imagery of an envelope being passed across a table. The group has said it spent $1 million on the TV ad buy. The ad cites an article published in May by a news station based in Quincy, which claimed state lawmakers 'gave themselves an $1,800 pay raise' by including a cost-of-living increase in the budget they approved for the new fiscal year, which began July 1. Leaders in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, long vocal about refusing such raises, are adamant there is no raise on the books. So we decided to check it out. The budget includes $0 for lawmaker raises There's an interesting history behind the way state lawmakers are compensated, a system long criticized as political cowardice. Decades ago, every time lawmakers wanted more taxpayer money in their personal bank accounts, they were required to pass a bill. Voting themselves pay raises in lean years was a liability come election time. So, through a series of acts in the 1980s criticized at the time as backdoor menuevers, they gave themselves an automatic cost-of-living bump each year. That means the only time lawmakers need to act on their personal pay is if they want to reject their automatic raises, which they have routinely done for most of the past decade. But last year a circuit court judge ruled unconstitutional the pay freezes for lawmakers passed during their terms. The longstanding maneuver was challenged in court by two former lawmakers who want their back pay. The state is appealing that judge's ruling. This year - faced with that legal decision - Democratic leaders took a different approach by freezing legislator pay indirectly through their spending bill. Instead of rejecting the pay increase, they simply appropriated no money for it. It's a move experts say could face similar legal challenges from dissenting lawmakers who feel entitled to their raises. Republican lawmakers are suspicious of this new tactic, which comes only a year after Pritzker signed a budget that gave legislators their first raise since 2008, hiking their base pay to more than $69,000. The governor defended that increase based on 'how hard these legislators are working.' This year, Pritzker and the General Assembly have promised no such raises, a point Pritzker reiterates in a TV spot of his own responding to Illinois Rising Action's attack. A future lawsuit could force payments So we asked Illinois Rising Action for their evidence that lawmakers are getting a raise this year thanks to Pritzker. Kayleen Carlson, the group's executive director, referred to yet another law, passed in 2014, that made lawmaker pay a 'continuing appropriation,' which she argues makes the $0 appropriation for raises in the budget Pritzker signed an empty gesture. 'Since 2014, Illinois law automatically increases state lawmakers' pay through a 'continuing appropriation,'' Carlson wrote in an email. 'This means that legislators who want to foreclose a pay increase must pass a bill specifically to do so.' Regardless, Democratic Comptroller Susana Mendoza, the official in charge of cutting the state's checks, promises there will be no raises this fiscal year. She even released a video to underscore that message. Experts say the decades of political gamesmanship lawmakers have used to avoid voting for their own pay raises may be finally coming to a head. Charles N. Wheeler III, who has followed the General Assembly for decades as both a journalist and professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said there is one obvious fix - go back to the politically inconvenient practice of forcing lawmakers to vote on pay increases. One Republican senator proposed legislation in February to do just that, but the bill died in committee without ever coming up for a vote. Under that legislation, the fix wouldn't take effect until 2023, when lawmakers will all begin new terms. As for the ad's claim, Wheeler called it 'a convenient misstatement of the facts.' 'If you wanted to be more accurate, you would say the governor and the Democratic majorities failed to take the actions that would have been needed to eliminate these things going forward,' he said. 'But that's not as effective as saying, 'he gave his buddies a pay raise.'' | Our ruling Illinois Rising Action's ad says 'while voters were distracted, Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies.' The group was referencing the annual cost-of-living adjustments legislators are provided with automatically under state law. For most of the past decade, legislators have passed bills rejecting those raises. Because of a recent legal decision, lawmakers used a different maneuver to freeze pay this year in the budget Pritzker signed. Lawmakers have gotten no pay raise this year, and the governor made no moves designed to give them one. We rate this claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"100237-proof-37-4549d0da29c8692523a66d25ba9f5945.jpg"
]
|
'While voters were distracted, (Gov. J.B.) Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies. | Contradiction | A new group affiliated with a national Republican opposition research organization is targeting Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker over the perennially fraught issue of lawmaker pay. Illinois Rising Action, a nonprofit launched in March by America Rising Squared, is out with an ad accusing Pritzker of putting the interests of politicians above those of working families during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'While voters were distracted, Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies,' a narrator says halfway through the 30-second spot, which includes boilerplate imagery of an envelope being passed across a table. The group has said it spent $1 million on the TV ad buy. The ad cites an article published in May by a news station based in Quincy, which claimed state lawmakers 'gave themselves an $1,800 pay raise' by including a cost-of-living increase in the budget they approved for the new fiscal year, which began July 1. Leaders in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, long vocal about refusing such raises, are adamant there is no raise on the books. So we decided to check it out. The budget includes $0 for lawmaker raises There's an interesting history behind the way state lawmakers are compensated, a system long criticized as political cowardice. Decades ago, every time lawmakers wanted more taxpayer money in their personal bank accounts, they were required to pass a bill. Voting themselves pay raises in lean years was a liability come election time. So, through a series of acts in the 1980s criticized at the time as backdoor menuevers, they gave themselves an automatic cost-of-living bump each year. That means the only time lawmakers need to act on their personal pay is if they want to reject their automatic raises, which they have routinely done for most of the past decade. But last year a circuit court judge ruled unconstitutional the pay freezes for lawmakers passed during their terms. The longstanding maneuver was challenged in court by two former lawmakers who want their back pay. The state is appealing that judge's ruling. This year - faced with that legal decision - Democratic leaders took a different approach by freezing legislator pay indirectly through their spending bill. Instead of rejecting the pay increase, they simply appropriated no money for it. It's a move experts say could face similar legal challenges from dissenting lawmakers who feel entitled to their raises. Republican lawmakers are suspicious of this new tactic, which comes only a year after Pritzker signed a budget that gave legislators their first raise since 2008, hiking their base pay to more than $69,000. The governor defended that increase based on 'how hard these legislators are working.' This year, Pritzker and the General Assembly have promised no such raises, a point Pritzker reiterates in a TV spot of his own responding to Illinois Rising Action's attack. A future lawsuit could force payments So we asked Illinois Rising Action for their evidence that lawmakers are getting a raise this year thanks to Pritzker. Kayleen Carlson, the group's executive director, referred to yet another law, passed in 2014, that made lawmaker pay a 'continuing appropriation,' which she argues makes the $0 appropriation for raises in the budget Pritzker signed an empty gesture. 'Since 2014, Illinois law automatically increases state lawmakers' pay through a 'continuing appropriation,'' Carlson wrote in an email. 'This means that legislators who want to foreclose a pay increase must pass a bill specifically to do so.' Regardless, Democratic Comptroller Susana Mendoza, the official in charge of cutting the state's checks, promises there will be no raises this fiscal year. She even released a video to underscore that message. Experts say the decades of political gamesmanship lawmakers have used to avoid voting for their own pay raises may be finally coming to a head. Charles N. Wheeler III, who has followed the General Assembly for decades as both a journalist and professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said there is one obvious fix - go back to the politically inconvenient practice of forcing lawmakers to vote on pay increases. One Republican senator proposed legislation in February to do just that, but the bill died in committee without ever coming up for a vote. Under that legislation, the fix wouldn't take effect until 2023, when lawmakers will all begin new terms. As for the ad's claim, Wheeler called it 'a convenient misstatement of the facts.' 'If you wanted to be more accurate, you would say the governor and the Democratic majorities failed to take the actions that would have been needed to eliminate these things going forward,' he said. 'But that's not as effective as saying, 'he gave his buddies a pay raise.'' | Our ruling Illinois Rising Action's ad says 'while voters were distracted, Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies.' The group was referencing the annual cost-of-living adjustments legislators are provided with automatically under state law. For most of the past decade, legislators have passed bills rejecting those raises. Because of a recent legal decision, lawmakers used a different maneuver to freeze pay this year in the budget Pritzker signed. Lawmakers have gotten no pay raise this year, and the governor made no moves designed to give them one. We rate this claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"100237-proof-37-4549d0da29c8692523a66d25ba9f5945.jpg"
]
|
'While voters were distracted, (Gov. J.B.) Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies. | Contradiction | A new group affiliated with a national Republican opposition research organization is targeting Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker over the perennially fraught issue of lawmaker pay. Illinois Rising Action, a nonprofit launched in March by America Rising Squared, is out with an ad accusing Pritzker of putting the interests of politicians above those of working families during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'While voters were distracted, Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies,' a narrator says halfway through the 30-second spot, which includes boilerplate imagery of an envelope being passed across a table. The group has said it spent $1 million on the TV ad buy. The ad cites an article published in May by a news station based in Quincy, which claimed state lawmakers 'gave themselves an $1,800 pay raise' by including a cost-of-living increase in the budget they approved for the new fiscal year, which began July 1. Leaders in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, long vocal about refusing such raises, are adamant there is no raise on the books. So we decided to check it out. The budget includes $0 for lawmaker raises There's an interesting history behind the way state lawmakers are compensated, a system long criticized as political cowardice. Decades ago, every time lawmakers wanted more taxpayer money in their personal bank accounts, they were required to pass a bill. Voting themselves pay raises in lean years was a liability come election time. So, through a series of acts in the 1980s criticized at the time as backdoor menuevers, they gave themselves an automatic cost-of-living bump each year. That means the only time lawmakers need to act on their personal pay is if they want to reject their automatic raises, which they have routinely done for most of the past decade. But last year a circuit court judge ruled unconstitutional the pay freezes for lawmakers passed during their terms. The longstanding maneuver was challenged in court by two former lawmakers who want their back pay. The state is appealing that judge's ruling. This year - faced with that legal decision - Democratic leaders took a different approach by freezing legislator pay indirectly through their spending bill. Instead of rejecting the pay increase, they simply appropriated no money for it. It's a move experts say could face similar legal challenges from dissenting lawmakers who feel entitled to their raises. Republican lawmakers are suspicious of this new tactic, which comes only a year after Pritzker signed a budget that gave legislators their first raise since 2008, hiking their base pay to more than $69,000. The governor defended that increase based on 'how hard these legislators are working.' This year, Pritzker and the General Assembly have promised no such raises, a point Pritzker reiterates in a TV spot of his own responding to Illinois Rising Action's attack. A future lawsuit could force payments So we asked Illinois Rising Action for their evidence that lawmakers are getting a raise this year thanks to Pritzker. Kayleen Carlson, the group's executive director, referred to yet another law, passed in 2014, that made lawmaker pay a 'continuing appropriation,' which she argues makes the $0 appropriation for raises in the budget Pritzker signed an empty gesture. 'Since 2014, Illinois law automatically increases state lawmakers' pay through a 'continuing appropriation,'' Carlson wrote in an email. 'This means that legislators who want to foreclose a pay increase must pass a bill specifically to do so.' Regardless, Democratic Comptroller Susana Mendoza, the official in charge of cutting the state's checks, promises there will be no raises this fiscal year. She even released a video to underscore that message. Experts say the decades of political gamesmanship lawmakers have used to avoid voting for their own pay raises may be finally coming to a head. Charles N. Wheeler III, who has followed the General Assembly for decades as both a journalist and professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said there is one obvious fix - go back to the politically inconvenient practice of forcing lawmakers to vote on pay increases. One Republican senator proposed legislation in February to do just that, but the bill died in committee without ever coming up for a vote. Under that legislation, the fix wouldn't take effect until 2023, when lawmakers will all begin new terms. As for the ad's claim, Wheeler called it 'a convenient misstatement of the facts.' 'If you wanted to be more accurate, you would say the governor and the Democratic majorities failed to take the actions that would have been needed to eliminate these things going forward,' he said. 'But that's not as effective as saying, 'he gave his buddies a pay raise.'' | Our ruling Illinois Rising Action's ad says 'while voters were distracted, Pritzker gave huge pay raises to his politician buddies.' The group was referencing the annual cost-of-living adjustments legislators are provided with automatically under state law. For most of the past decade, legislators have passed bills rejecting those raises. Because of a recent legal decision, lawmakers used a different maneuver to freeze pay this year in the budget Pritzker signed. Lawmakers have gotten no pay raise this year, and the governor made no moves designed to give them one. We rate this claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"100237-proof-37-4549d0da29c8692523a66d25ba9f5945.jpg"
]
|
Counting ballots for weeks after Election Day 'is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws. | Contradiction | As Nov. 3 approaches, President Donald Trump has been expressing alarm about ballot counting extending beyond Election Night. 'Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd,' Trump tweeted on Oct. 26 Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd.- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 26, 2020 The following day, Trump added in remarks to reporters, 'It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on Nov. 3, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws.' However, the president was wrong. When the media 'calls' a presidential race - which may or may not happen on Election Night - it is because they feel that projections from the current results are strong enough to announce one candidate over the other. It's not an official result. 'There are no official results on Election Night - there never have been,' said Edward B. Foley, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor who specializes in elections. 'Election Night tallies are always just preliminary, pending certification of the canvass of returns under state law, which takes time. Every state has a law on this point.' Especially in this year's election, when many voters are sending in their ballots or voting early in person rather than voting on Election Day due to the coronavirus pandemic, experts say it will take a decisive victory by one candidate or the other to be able to declare a winner on Election Night or early the following morning. (Trump's tweet was later flagged by Twitter as potentially harming the integrity of the election.). Here are some of the specific reasons why Trump is off-base. Absentee ballots According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, 19 states have laws allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day, but are postmarked on Election Day (or, in some states, the day before Election Day). This number could vary this year due to pending litigation. In many cases, such postmark rules for absentee ballots have been around 'for years,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. In close races, even a modest number of late-arriving ballots could prove decisive. Overseas military ballots Many states allow service members stationed overseas a grace period for ballots they mail back to the mainland. For instance, states like Texas and West Virginia will require overseas military ballots to be received by Nov. 9, while others require a postmark, but not receipt, by Nov. 3, such as Georgia and Nevada. Provisional ballots Provisional ballots are those that are cast when a voter's eligibility is in question. If election officials resolve those questions, the ballot will be counted, but the checking and counting process takes time. The rules for provisional ballots were streamlined by the Help America Vote Act, a federal law passed in 2002. 'Provisional ballots by their very nature cannot be counted on Election Day or Election Night and must be verified subsequently as part of the canvassing of returns,' Foley said. State certification of results Under federal law, states have until Dec. 8, or six days before the presidential electors vote, to finalize their ballot count. This deadline acknowledges, as a matter of federal law, that states are not obligated to have a final official result on Election Night. Even if a projected winner were to be announced by television networks and other media companies on Election Night, nothing would be official until the presidential electors cast their ballots on Dec. 14, and Congress officially counts the electoral votes on Jan. 6. As a practical matter, Weil said, 'the vast majority of ballots will be counted within two or three days of Election Day, even in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that cannot start counting absentee ballots until the day before Election Day or on Election Day itself.' The Trump campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article. | Our ruling Trump said that 'counting ballots for two weeks ... is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws.' He's wrong. Post-election day time to count absentee ballots, overseas military ballots, and provisional ballots are enshrined in both federal and state law. In addition, federal law allows states until more than a month after the election to finalize their results for the casting of electoral votes. We rate his statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100244-proof-04-fc2817bfe633a2f8d0f334dd850f20c8.jpg"
]
|
Counting ballots for weeks after Election Day 'is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws. | Contradiction | As Nov. 3 approaches, President Donald Trump has been expressing alarm about ballot counting extending beyond Election Night. 'Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd,' Trump tweeted on Oct. 26 Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd.- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 26, 2020 The following day, Trump added in remarks to reporters, 'It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on Nov. 3, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws.' However, the president was wrong. When the media 'calls' a presidential race - which may or may not happen on Election Night - it is because they feel that projections from the current results are strong enough to announce one candidate over the other. It's not an official result. 'There are no official results on Election Night - there never have been,' said Edward B. Foley, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor who specializes in elections. 'Election Night tallies are always just preliminary, pending certification of the canvass of returns under state law, which takes time. Every state has a law on this point.' Especially in this year's election, when many voters are sending in their ballots or voting early in person rather than voting on Election Day due to the coronavirus pandemic, experts say it will take a decisive victory by one candidate or the other to be able to declare a winner on Election Night or early the following morning. (Trump's tweet was later flagged by Twitter as potentially harming the integrity of the election.). Here are some of the specific reasons why Trump is off-base. Absentee ballots According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, 19 states have laws allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day, but are postmarked on Election Day (or, in some states, the day before Election Day). This number could vary this year due to pending litigation. In many cases, such postmark rules for absentee ballots have been around 'for years,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. In close races, even a modest number of late-arriving ballots could prove decisive. Overseas military ballots Many states allow service members stationed overseas a grace period for ballots they mail back to the mainland. For instance, states like Texas and West Virginia will require overseas military ballots to be received by Nov. 9, while others require a postmark, but not receipt, by Nov. 3, such as Georgia and Nevada. Provisional ballots Provisional ballots are those that are cast when a voter's eligibility is in question. If election officials resolve those questions, the ballot will be counted, but the checking and counting process takes time. The rules for provisional ballots were streamlined by the Help America Vote Act, a federal law passed in 2002. 'Provisional ballots by their very nature cannot be counted on Election Day or Election Night and must be verified subsequently as part of the canvassing of returns,' Foley said. State certification of results Under federal law, states have until Dec. 8, or six days before the presidential electors vote, to finalize their ballot count. This deadline acknowledges, as a matter of federal law, that states are not obligated to have a final official result on Election Night. Even if a projected winner were to be announced by television networks and other media companies on Election Night, nothing would be official until the presidential electors cast their ballots on Dec. 14, and Congress officially counts the electoral votes on Jan. 6. As a practical matter, Weil said, 'the vast majority of ballots will be counted within two or three days of Election Day, even in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that cannot start counting absentee ballots until the day before Election Day or on Election Day itself.' The Trump campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article. | Our ruling Trump said that 'counting ballots for two weeks ... is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws.' He's wrong. Post-election day time to count absentee ballots, overseas military ballots, and provisional ballots are enshrined in both federal and state law. In addition, federal law allows states until more than a month after the election to finalize their results for the casting of electoral votes. We rate his statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100244-proof-04-fc2817bfe633a2f8d0f334dd850f20c8.jpg"
]
|
'Generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve. | Contradiction | U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson has raised eyebrows more than once during the coronavirus pandemic. Earlier this year, he noted most people survive COVID-19 and argued governments shouldn't shut down economies to contain the virus. The senator himself tested positive in early October and said he would wear a moon suit if needed to vote in person to confirm Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Oct. 21, 2020, Johnson, a Republican, made another comment that turned heads in Wisconsin, where cases of COVID-19 continue to skyrocket and overwhelm hospitals. 'Unfortunately, we've had more deaths, but generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve,' he said on a call with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. 'We've gotten better at treating it.' Is he right that deaths are 'pretty flat because we've flattened the curve'? Let's dig in. COVID-19 deaths in Wisconsin Johnson's claim came as part of his legislative update for the WMC, the state's largest business lobby. Here's his full statement about COVID-19 deaths, which he made after WMC president and CEO Kurt Bauer asked the senator how he was feeling: 'I think it's important to note, and I heard a little bit of your earlier presenter, as we're struggling with, there's no doubt about it, a surge in cases - we had another record day yesterday in COVID - unfortunately, we've had more deaths, but generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve, we've gotten better at treating it, we know about the anti-inflammatories and steroids and convalescent plasma, which will hopefully be available here shortly.' According to the state Department of Health Services, COVID-19 cases and deaths in Wisconsin are at their highest ever. The state's worst day came Oct. 21 - the same day Johnson made this claim - when officials reported 48 deaths, surpassing a previous record of 34 reported on Oct. 13. As of Oct. 22, 2020, the seven-day average for deaths sat at 21. In the spring, by contrast, the number of deaths reported in one day peaked at 22, and the seven-day average never surpassed 13. 'Of course the curve has not flattened and we don't have the virus under control,' Patrick Remington, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist and director of the preventive medicine residency program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Flattened the curve? When asked for evidence to support the senator's claim, spokesman Ben Voelkel said Johnson was 'talking about flattening the curve of deaths nationally - 'generally,' as he puts it.' Voelkel said that statement is supported by statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the New York Times. But Johnson began by mentioning the recent spikes in Wisconsin and was speaking to a group of Wisconsin business leaders, leaving listeners with the impression that he meant death numbers here. He made no attempt to distinguish statewide trends from national. Johnson also revisited the point during a telephone town hall the next day, saying 'we can see the light at the tunnel nationally on this.' 'We have a dramatic increase in cases in Wisconsin,' he said. 'And again, the good news is, if you do look at the number of deaths, those have kicked up as well, but it's still relatively flat. It hasn't followed the same uptick in terms of number of cases.' Let's take a look at the national data cited by Johnson's staff. According to the New York Times, daily reported coronavirus deaths peaked in mid-April, with some days exceeding 2,700 nationwide. More recently, that number ranged from 267 deaths on Sept. 27 to 1,208 on Oct. 21. However, the more telling seven-day average largely stayed in the 700s over the past month. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks deaths weekly, pointed to similar trends: a peak in mid-April followed by a slight increase around August and a decline since early September. So, from that perspective, Johnson's claim is more on point. Deaths have decreased overall since the pandemic's onset, and seven-day averages reported by the New York Times remained steady in recent weeks even as daily numbers fluctuated. There is a problem here, though. Johnson attributes the 'pretty flat' deaths in part to a flattening of the curve, which typically refers to the number of cases. And the United States clearly has not flattened the curve. As Johns Hopkins University has noted, flattening the curve 'involves reducing the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next' to help prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. Data from the university show the United States is doing the opposite - the seven-day average has risen steadily since September. | Our ruling On a call with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Johnson said, 'Generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve.' Cases are up nationwide and in Wisconsin, so the curve of new cases has not been flattened. And deaths in Wisconsin are at an all-time high, even if nationally they have been more stable. A Johnson spokesman argued the senator was referring to national trends when he spoke. However, he made the claim in the context of discussing the situation in Wisconsin, and even if one were to use a national perspective, he's only partially correct. A statement is Mostly False when it contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That fits here. | [
"100250-proof-18-8a716e7c5769efbbe7894ff2a8663336.jpg"
]
|
'Generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve. | Contradiction | U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson has raised eyebrows more than once during the coronavirus pandemic. Earlier this year, he noted most people survive COVID-19 and argued governments shouldn't shut down economies to contain the virus. The senator himself tested positive in early October and said he would wear a moon suit if needed to vote in person to confirm Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Oct. 21, 2020, Johnson, a Republican, made another comment that turned heads in Wisconsin, where cases of COVID-19 continue to skyrocket and overwhelm hospitals. 'Unfortunately, we've had more deaths, but generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve,' he said on a call with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. 'We've gotten better at treating it.' Is he right that deaths are 'pretty flat because we've flattened the curve'? Let's dig in. COVID-19 deaths in Wisconsin Johnson's claim came as part of his legislative update for the WMC, the state's largest business lobby. Here's his full statement about COVID-19 deaths, which he made after WMC president and CEO Kurt Bauer asked the senator how he was feeling: 'I think it's important to note, and I heard a little bit of your earlier presenter, as we're struggling with, there's no doubt about it, a surge in cases - we had another record day yesterday in COVID - unfortunately, we've had more deaths, but generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve, we've gotten better at treating it, we know about the anti-inflammatories and steroids and convalescent plasma, which will hopefully be available here shortly.' According to the state Department of Health Services, COVID-19 cases and deaths in Wisconsin are at their highest ever. The state's worst day came Oct. 21 - the same day Johnson made this claim - when officials reported 48 deaths, surpassing a previous record of 34 reported on Oct. 13. As of Oct. 22, 2020, the seven-day average for deaths sat at 21. In the spring, by contrast, the number of deaths reported in one day peaked at 22, and the seven-day average never surpassed 13. 'Of course the curve has not flattened and we don't have the virus under control,' Patrick Remington, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist and director of the preventive medicine residency program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Flattened the curve? When asked for evidence to support the senator's claim, spokesman Ben Voelkel said Johnson was 'talking about flattening the curve of deaths nationally - 'generally,' as he puts it.' Voelkel said that statement is supported by statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the New York Times. But Johnson began by mentioning the recent spikes in Wisconsin and was speaking to a group of Wisconsin business leaders, leaving listeners with the impression that he meant death numbers here. He made no attempt to distinguish statewide trends from national. Johnson also revisited the point during a telephone town hall the next day, saying 'we can see the light at the tunnel nationally on this.' 'We have a dramatic increase in cases in Wisconsin,' he said. 'And again, the good news is, if you do look at the number of deaths, those have kicked up as well, but it's still relatively flat. It hasn't followed the same uptick in terms of number of cases.' Let's take a look at the national data cited by Johnson's staff. According to the New York Times, daily reported coronavirus deaths peaked in mid-April, with some days exceeding 2,700 nationwide. More recently, that number ranged from 267 deaths on Sept. 27 to 1,208 on Oct. 21. However, the more telling seven-day average largely stayed in the 700s over the past month. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks deaths weekly, pointed to similar trends: a peak in mid-April followed by a slight increase around August and a decline since early September. So, from that perspective, Johnson's claim is more on point. Deaths have decreased overall since the pandemic's onset, and seven-day averages reported by the New York Times remained steady in recent weeks even as daily numbers fluctuated. There is a problem here, though. Johnson attributes the 'pretty flat' deaths in part to a flattening of the curve, which typically refers to the number of cases. And the United States clearly has not flattened the curve. As Johns Hopkins University has noted, flattening the curve 'involves reducing the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next' to help prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. Data from the university show the United States is doing the opposite - the seven-day average has risen steadily since September. | Our ruling On a call with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Johnson said, 'Generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve.' Cases are up nationwide and in Wisconsin, so the curve of new cases has not been flattened. And deaths in Wisconsin are at an all-time high, even if nationally they have been more stable. A Johnson spokesman argued the senator was referring to national trends when he spoke. However, he made the claim in the context of discussing the situation in Wisconsin, and even if one were to use a national perspective, he's only partially correct. A statement is Mostly False when it contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That fits here. | [
"100250-proof-18-8a716e7c5769efbbe7894ff2a8663336.jpg"
]
|
'Generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve. | Contradiction | U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson has raised eyebrows more than once during the coronavirus pandemic. Earlier this year, he noted most people survive COVID-19 and argued governments shouldn't shut down economies to contain the virus. The senator himself tested positive in early October and said he would wear a moon suit if needed to vote in person to confirm Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Oct. 21, 2020, Johnson, a Republican, made another comment that turned heads in Wisconsin, where cases of COVID-19 continue to skyrocket and overwhelm hospitals. 'Unfortunately, we've had more deaths, but generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve,' he said on a call with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. 'We've gotten better at treating it.' Is he right that deaths are 'pretty flat because we've flattened the curve'? Let's dig in. COVID-19 deaths in Wisconsin Johnson's claim came as part of his legislative update for the WMC, the state's largest business lobby. Here's his full statement about COVID-19 deaths, which he made after WMC president and CEO Kurt Bauer asked the senator how he was feeling: 'I think it's important to note, and I heard a little bit of your earlier presenter, as we're struggling with, there's no doubt about it, a surge in cases - we had another record day yesterday in COVID - unfortunately, we've had more deaths, but generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve, we've gotten better at treating it, we know about the anti-inflammatories and steroids and convalescent plasma, which will hopefully be available here shortly.' According to the state Department of Health Services, COVID-19 cases and deaths in Wisconsin are at their highest ever. The state's worst day came Oct. 21 - the same day Johnson made this claim - when officials reported 48 deaths, surpassing a previous record of 34 reported on Oct. 13. As of Oct. 22, 2020, the seven-day average for deaths sat at 21. In the spring, by contrast, the number of deaths reported in one day peaked at 22, and the seven-day average never surpassed 13. 'Of course the curve has not flattened and we don't have the virus under control,' Patrick Remington, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist and director of the preventive medicine residency program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Flattened the curve? When asked for evidence to support the senator's claim, spokesman Ben Voelkel said Johnson was 'talking about flattening the curve of deaths nationally - 'generally,' as he puts it.' Voelkel said that statement is supported by statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the New York Times. But Johnson began by mentioning the recent spikes in Wisconsin and was speaking to a group of Wisconsin business leaders, leaving listeners with the impression that he meant death numbers here. He made no attempt to distinguish statewide trends from national. Johnson also revisited the point during a telephone town hall the next day, saying 'we can see the light at the tunnel nationally on this.' 'We have a dramatic increase in cases in Wisconsin,' he said. 'And again, the good news is, if you do look at the number of deaths, those have kicked up as well, but it's still relatively flat. It hasn't followed the same uptick in terms of number of cases.' Let's take a look at the national data cited by Johnson's staff. According to the New York Times, daily reported coronavirus deaths peaked in mid-April, with some days exceeding 2,700 nationwide. More recently, that number ranged from 267 deaths on Sept. 27 to 1,208 on Oct. 21. However, the more telling seven-day average largely stayed in the 700s over the past month. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks deaths weekly, pointed to similar trends: a peak in mid-April followed by a slight increase around August and a decline since early September. So, from that perspective, Johnson's claim is more on point. Deaths have decreased overall since the pandemic's onset, and seven-day averages reported by the New York Times remained steady in recent weeks even as daily numbers fluctuated. There is a problem here, though. Johnson attributes the 'pretty flat' deaths in part to a flattening of the curve, which typically refers to the number of cases. And the United States clearly has not flattened the curve. As Johns Hopkins University has noted, flattening the curve 'involves reducing the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next' to help prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. Data from the university show the United States is doing the opposite - the seven-day average has risen steadily since September. | Our ruling On a call with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Johnson said, 'Generally the deaths are still pretty flat because we've flattened the curve.' Cases are up nationwide and in Wisconsin, so the curve of new cases has not been flattened. And deaths in Wisconsin are at an all-time high, even if nationally they have been more stable. A Johnson spokesman argued the senator was referring to national trends when he spoke. However, he made the claim in the context of discussing the situation in Wisconsin, and even if one were to use a national perspective, he's only partially correct. A statement is Mostly False when it contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That fits here. | [
"100250-proof-18-8a716e7c5769efbbe7894ff2a8663336.jpg"
]
|
The government is 'monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines. | Contradiction | In a recent episode of his popular podcast, Spotify host Joe Rogan implied that the government is 'monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines.' That's not true. The effort Rogan was referring to is not about intercepting or screening private text messages, and there's no evidence the government is involved with it, as PolitiFact has reported. The misleading claim came about an hour and a half into the podcast as Rogan, whose show was the most popular podcast on Spotify in 2020, discussed issues of surveillance and privacy with journalist Abby Martin, his guest for the July 20 episode. 'Look, we're living in a panopticon here,' Martin said. 'We're in a surveillance state that is undoubtedly so.' Martin then asked Rogan if he thought his emails were being watched. 'I assume all my emails are monitored,' Rogan said in response. 'But have you seen the new thing about SMS text messages to stop COVID vaccine misinformation? 'They are monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines,' Rogan continued. 'Now look, misinformation is not good, right, with anything. But who's deciding?' Rogan's claim was vague about who 'they' are and what messages were being monitored, but in context of discussion of a 'surveillance state,' it gave the false impression that the government is screening private texts between family and friends - a claim that several conservative politicians and pundits, such as Sen. Josh Hawley and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, made more explicitly. That allegation grew out of a Politico report about the Biden White House's efforts to fight back against what it perceives as misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. The July 12 report included this nugget about SMS text messages: 'Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.' DNC spokesman Lucas Acosta told PolitiFact that the party is merely notifying companies that facilitate bulk texting about broadcast SMSs that spread misinformation. Broadcast SMSs are messages that organizers blast out to large lists of subscribers, often through an application such as Twilio or Bandwidth. 'When the DNC's counter-disinformation program receives complaints or reports of fraudulent broadcast SMSs that we believe violate the text aggregators' terms of service, we notify the broadcast text platform to help combat this troubling trend,' Acosta said. 'Of course the DNC has no ability to access or read people's private text messages, and we are not working with any government agency, including the White House, to try to see personal text messages,' Acosta said. 'The only texts reviewed are those distributed en masse to American citizens through broadcast text platforms and reported to the DNC.' Speaking about the effort on his podcast, Rogan did not distinguish between the government and the DNC, or between the personal texts exchanged between individuals and the type of mass texts blasted to mailing lists that the DNC is concerned about, leaving room for confusion. Politico reporter Natasha Korecki, who co-authored the report that spawned the false claims of government spying, said in a pair of tweets that the White House is not involved, and that 'there is no ability for groups to read individual texts aside from the ones they receive themselves.' And CTIA, a trade group representing the wireless communications industry, said in a statement: 'Wireless carriers do not read or moderate the content of text messages that their customers send to each other, nor are carriers working with third parties to do so.' A Spotify representative declined to comment on behalf of the company and Rogan. | Our ruling In a conversation about privacy and living in 'a surveillance state,' Rogan said, 'They are monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines.' Rogan's vague references to 'they' and 'SMS texts' could have left some listeners with the misleading impression that the government is snooping on all text messages that Americans send and receive, including private messages. That's not the case. The effort he alluded to comes from the Democratic National Committee, which is alerting companies that facilitate bulk text messaging to reports about mass text messages that spread misinformation in violation of their terms of service. The government is not involved, and no messages are being screened. The statement leaves out context that could give a different impression. We rate Rogan's statement Mostly False. | [
"100254-proof-12-319f395a63c2caccfd1752211850debf.jpg"
]
|
The government is 'monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines. | Contradiction | In a recent episode of his popular podcast, Spotify host Joe Rogan implied that the government is 'monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines.' That's not true. The effort Rogan was referring to is not about intercepting or screening private text messages, and there's no evidence the government is involved with it, as PolitiFact has reported. The misleading claim came about an hour and a half into the podcast as Rogan, whose show was the most popular podcast on Spotify in 2020, discussed issues of surveillance and privacy with journalist Abby Martin, his guest for the July 20 episode. 'Look, we're living in a panopticon here,' Martin said. 'We're in a surveillance state that is undoubtedly so.' Martin then asked Rogan if he thought his emails were being watched. 'I assume all my emails are monitored,' Rogan said in response. 'But have you seen the new thing about SMS text messages to stop COVID vaccine misinformation? 'They are monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines,' Rogan continued. 'Now look, misinformation is not good, right, with anything. But who's deciding?' Rogan's claim was vague about who 'they' are and what messages were being monitored, but in context of discussion of a 'surveillance state,' it gave the false impression that the government is screening private texts between family and friends - a claim that several conservative politicians and pundits, such as Sen. Josh Hawley and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, made more explicitly. That allegation grew out of a Politico report about the Biden White House's efforts to fight back against what it perceives as misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. The July 12 report included this nugget about SMS text messages: 'Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.' DNC spokesman Lucas Acosta told PolitiFact that the party is merely notifying companies that facilitate bulk texting about broadcast SMSs that spread misinformation. Broadcast SMSs are messages that organizers blast out to large lists of subscribers, often through an application such as Twilio or Bandwidth. 'When the DNC's counter-disinformation program receives complaints or reports of fraudulent broadcast SMSs that we believe violate the text aggregators' terms of service, we notify the broadcast text platform to help combat this troubling trend,' Acosta said. 'Of course the DNC has no ability to access or read people's private text messages, and we are not working with any government agency, including the White House, to try to see personal text messages,' Acosta said. 'The only texts reviewed are those distributed en masse to American citizens through broadcast text platforms and reported to the DNC.' Speaking about the effort on his podcast, Rogan did not distinguish between the government and the DNC, or between the personal texts exchanged between individuals and the type of mass texts blasted to mailing lists that the DNC is concerned about, leaving room for confusion. Politico reporter Natasha Korecki, who co-authored the report that spawned the false claims of government spying, said in a pair of tweets that the White House is not involved, and that 'there is no ability for groups to read individual texts aside from the ones they receive themselves.' And CTIA, a trade group representing the wireless communications industry, said in a statement: 'Wireless carriers do not read or moderate the content of text messages that their customers send to each other, nor are carriers working with third parties to do so.' A Spotify representative declined to comment on behalf of the company and Rogan. | Our ruling In a conversation about privacy and living in 'a surveillance state,' Rogan said, 'They are monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines.' Rogan's vague references to 'they' and 'SMS texts' could have left some listeners with the misleading impression that the government is snooping on all text messages that Americans send and receive, including private messages. That's not the case. The effort he alluded to comes from the Democratic National Committee, which is alerting companies that facilitate bulk text messaging to reports about mass text messages that spread misinformation in violation of their terms of service. The government is not involved, and no messages are being screened. The statement leaves out context that could give a different impression. We rate Rogan's statement Mostly False. | [
"100254-proof-12-319f395a63c2caccfd1752211850debf.jpg"
]
|
The government is 'monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines. | Contradiction | In a recent episode of his popular podcast, Spotify host Joe Rogan implied that the government is 'monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines.' That's not true. The effort Rogan was referring to is not about intercepting or screening private text messages, and there's no evidence the government is involved with it, as PolitiFact has reported. The misleading claim came about an hour and a half into the podcast as Rogan, whose show was the most popular podcast on Spotify in 2020, discussed issues of surveillance and privacy with journalist Abby Martin, his guest for the July 20 episode. 'Look, we're living in a panopticon here,' Martin said. 'We're in a surveillance state that is undoubtedly so.' Martin then asked Rogan if he thought his emails were being watched. 'I assume all my emails are monitored,' Rogan said in response. 'But have you seen the new thing about SMS text messages to stop COVID vaccine misinformation? 'They are monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines,' Rogan continued. 'Now look, misinformation is not good, right, with anything. But who's deciding?' Rogan's claim was vague about who 'they' are and what messages were being monitored, but in context of discussion of a 'surveillance state,' it gave the false impression that the government is screening private texts between family and friends - a claim that several conservative politicians and pundits, such as Sen. Josh Hawley and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, made more explicitly. That allegation grew out of a Politico report about the Biden White House's efforts to fight back against what it perceives as misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. The July 12 report included this nugget about SMS text messages: 'Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.' DNC spokesman Lucas Acosta told PolitiFact that the party is merely notifying companies that facilitate bulk texting about broadcast SMSs that spread misinformation. Broadcast SMSs are messages that organizers blast out to large lists of subscribers, often through an application such as Twilio or Bandwidth. 'When the DNC's counter-disinformation program receives complaints or reports of fraudulent broadcast SMSs that we believe violate the text aggregators' terms of service, we notify the broadcast text platform to help combat this troubling trend,' Acosta said. 'Of course the DNC has no ability to access or read people's private text messages, and we are not working with any government agency, including the White House, to try to see personal text messages,' Acosta said. 'The only texts reviewed are those distributed en masse to American citizens through broadcast text platforms and reported to the DNC.' Speaking about the effort on his podcast, Rogan did not distinguish between the government and the DNC, or between the personal texts exchanged between individuals and the type of mass texts blasted to mailing lists that the DNC is concerned about, leaving room for confusion. Politico reporter Natasha Korecki, who co-authored the report that spawned the false claims of government spying, said in a pair of tweets that the White House is not involved, and that 'there is no ability for groups to read individual texts aside from the ones they receive themselves.' And CTIA, a trade group representing the wireless communications industry, said in a statement: 'Wireless carriers do not read or moderate the content of text messages that their customers send to each other, nor are carriers working with third parties to do so.' A Spotify representative declined to comment on behalf of the company and Rogan. | Our ruling In a conversation about privacy and living in 'a surveillance state,' Rogan said, 'They are monitoring SMS texts for dangerous misinformation about COVID vaccines.' Rogan's vague references to 'they' and 'SMS texts' could have left some listeners with the misleading impression that the government is snooping on all text messages that Americans send and receive, including private messages. That's not the case. The effort he alluded to comes from the Democratic National Committee, which is alerting companies that facilitate bulk text messaging to reports about mass text messages that spread misinformation in violation of their terms of service. The government is not involved, and no messages are being screened. The statement leaves out context that could give a different impression. We rate Rogan's statement Mostly False. | [
"100254-proof-12-319f395a63c2caccfd1752211850debf.jpg"
]
|
'The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run. | Contradiction | Black voters helped former Vice President Joe Biden all but secure the Democratic presidential nomination. But Biden overstated his support from the NAACP on a prominent radio show - the same one in which he said black voters who don't support him 'ain't black.' Biden faced tough questions during the May 22 edition of the 'Breakfast Club' show, which has a mostly black audience. Host Charlamagne tha God told Biden that Democrats take black voters for granted and asked why Biden resisted admitting that the 1994 crime bill hurt the black community. He also asked about the message sent by his campaign vetting Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a white senator from Minnesota, as a possible running mate. Near the end of the interview, Biden said: 'You got more questions, but I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.' Charlamagne tha God responded: 'It don't have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact I want something for my community. I would love to see --' Biden interjected: 'Take a look at my record, man,' citing his work to extend the Voting Rights Act. 'I have a record that is second to none. The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.' Later in the day, Biden walked back his 'you ain't black' comment. But it wasn't the only thing that needed addressing from the interview. NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said contrary to Biden's claim, the civil rights organization does not endorse candidates. 'We want to clarify that the NAACP is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse candidates for political office at any level,' Johnson wrote May 22. 'Persons affiliated with the NAACP at the national, state, and local levels are free to make candidate endorsements in a personal capacity, but they do not reflect support by the NAACP as an organization.' The NAACP's tax-exempt status means that it cannot endorse political candidates. RELATED: US minorities surpassed 25 percent of electorate when Obama ran in 2008, and it's going up The Biden campaign told PolitiFact that Biden was referring to NAACP ratings. Like other groups around politics, the NAACP issues a legislative report card for members of Congress rating their positions on bills pertaining to civil rights and other priorities for the organization. Each report card rates members on how they voted on judicial confirmations and specific bills that cover a range of topics such as education funding, job training, gun regulations, Medicaid and Medicare, voting and civil rights. The report cards available online date back to the 1989-90 term in Congress. Biden received several ratings during his decades-long career as a U.S. senator. Most were high. Biden's most recent report cards are from at least 15 years ago. In 2005-06 and 2003-04, he received a 100%. The link on the NAACP's website for the 2001-02 report card was broken. In the 1990s, he received grades of 90% or higher three times and received one 80%, one 70% and one 60%. In the earlier years, the report cards often reflected members' votes on about 10 issues while in later years it covered around 30 votes. That means that the more recent report cards provide more information on members' voting records. Thirty-six years ago, the Biden campaign pointed out, the Wilmington News Journal wrote that while the NAACP doesn't endorse, its materials show who they support. The newspaper described a voter education bulletin distributed in October 1984 by the Delaware State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. The bulletin 'makes clear that the NAACP backs two Democratic incumbents, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Rep. Thomas R. Carper, as well as Republican Battle R. Robinson for lieutenant governor,' the News Journal wrote. The group's voter information guide stated that Biden received a 90%. RELATED: Donald Trump said he's done more for African Americans than any president. Historians disagree | Our ruling Biden said, 'The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.' The NAACP does not endorse candidates. Biden's campaign said he was referring to past ratings by the NAACP when Biden was a U.S. senator. The civil rights organization gave him a grade of 90% or higher five times, though on three occasions in the 1990s he earned a lower score. Those grades show that Biden's record generally aligned with the NAACP's priorities for most of his tenure in the Senate. But it's not the same as an endorsement in a campaign. We rate this statement False. | [
"100281-proof-04-ddf21df4efed2ff9cd0cfaef28b7b321.jpg"
]
|
'The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run. | Contradiction | Black voters helped former Vice President Joe Biden all but secure the Democratic presidential nomination. But Biden overstated his support from the NAACP on a prominent radio show - the same one in which he said black voters who don't support him 'ain't black.' Biden faced tough questions during the May 22 edition of the 'Breakfast Club' show, which has a mostly black audience. Host Charlamagne tha God told Biden that Democrats take black voters for granted and asked why Biden resisted admitting that the 1994 crime bill hurt the black community. He also asked about the message sent by his campaign vetting Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a white senator from Minnesota, as a possible running mate. Near the end of the interview, Biden said: 'You got more questions, but I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.' Charlamagne tha God responded: 'It don't have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact I want something for my community. I would love to see --' Biden interjected: 'Take a look at my record, man,' citing his work to extend the Voting Rights Act. 'I have a record that is second to none. The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.' Later in the day, Biden walked back his 'you ain't black' comment. But it wasn't the only thing that needed addressing from the interview. NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said contrary to Biden's claim, the civil rights organization does not endorse candidates. 'We want to clarify that the NAACP is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse candidates for political office at any level,' Johnson wrote May 22. 'Persons affiliated with the NAACP at the national, state, and local levels are free to make candidate endorsements in a personal capacity, but they do not reflect support by the NAACP as an organization.' The NAACP's tax-exempt status means that it cannot endorse political candidates. RELATED: US minorities surpassed 25 percent of electorate when Obama ran in 2008, and it's going up The Biden campaign told PolitiFact that Biden was referring to NAACP ratings. Like other groups around politics, the NAACP issues a legislative report card for members of Congress rating their positions on bills pertaining to civil rights and other priorities for the organization. Each report card rates members on how they voted on judicial confirmations and specific bills that cover a range of topics such as education funding, job training, gun regulations, Medicaid and Medicare, voting and civil rights. The report cards available online date back to the 1989-90 term in Congress. Biden received several ratings during his decades-long career as a U.S. senator. Most were high. Biden's most recent report cards are from at least 15 years ago. In 2005-06 and 2003-04, he received a 100%. The link on the NAACP's website for the 2001-02 report card was broken. In the 1990s, he received grades of 90% or higher three times and received one 80%, one 70% and one 60%. In the earlier years, the report cards often reflected members' votes on about 10 issues while in later years it covered around 30 votes. That means that the more recent report cards provide more information on members' voting records. Thirty-six years ago, the Biden campaign pointed out, the Wilmington News Journal wrote that while the NAACP doesn't endorse, its materials show who they support. The newspaper described a voter education bulletin distributed in October 1984 by the Delaware State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. The bulletin 'makes clear that the NAACP backs two Democratic incumbents, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Rep. Thomas R. Carper, as well as Republican Battle R. Robinson for lieutenant governor,' the News Journal wrote. The group's voter information guide stated that Biden received a 90%. RELATED: Donald Trump said he's done more for African Americans than any president. Historians disagree | Our ruling Biden said, 'The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.' The NAACP does not endorse candidates. Biden's campaign said he was referring to past ratings by the NAACP when Biden was a U.S. senator. The civil rights organization gave him a grade of 90% or higher five times, though on three occasions in the 1990s he earned a lower score. Those grades show that Biden's record generally aligned with the NAACP's priorities for most of his tenure in the Senate. But it's not the same as an endorsement in a campaign. We rate this statement False. | [
"100281-proof-04-ddf21df4efed2ff9cd0cfaef28b7b321.jpg"
]
|
'The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run. | Contradiction | Black voters helped former Vice President Joe Biden all but secure the Democratic presidential nomination. But Biden overstated his support from the NAACP on a prominent radio show - the same one in which he said black voters who don't support him 'ain't black.' Biden faced tough questions during the May 22 edition of the 'Breakfast Club' show, which has a mostly black audience. Host Charlamagne tha God told Biden that Democrats take black voters for granted and asked why Biden resisted admitting that the 1994 crime bill hurt the black community. He also asked about the message sent by his campaign vetting Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a white senator from Minnesota, as a possible running mate. Near the end of the interview, Biden said: 'You got more questions, but I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.' Charlamagne tha God responded: 'It don't have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact I want something for my community. I would love to see --' Biden interjected: 'Take a look at my record, man,' citing his work to extend the Voting Rights Act. 'I have a record that is second to none. The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.' Later in the day, Biden walked back his 'you ain't black' comment. But it wasn't the only thing that needed addressing from the interview. NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said contrary to Biden's claim, the civil rights organization does not endorse candidates. 'We want to clarify that the NAACP is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse candidates for political office at any level,' Johnson wrote May 22. 'Persons affiliated with the NAACP at the national, state, and local levels are free to make candidate endorsements in a personal capacity, but they do not reflect support by the NAACP as an organization.' The NAACP's tax-exempt status means that it cannot endorse political candidates. RELATED: US minorities surpassed 25 percent of electorate when Obama ran in 2008, and it's going up The Biden campaign told PolitiFact that Biden was referring to NAACP ratings. Like other groups around politics, the NAACP issues a legislative report card for members of Congress rating their positions on bills pertaining to civil rights and other priorities for the organization. Each report card rates members on how they voted on judicial confirmations and specific bills that cover a range of topics such as education funding, job training, gun regulations, Medicaid and Medicare, voting and civil rights. The report cards available online date back to the 1989-90 term in Congress. Biden received several ratings during his decades-long career as a U.S. senator. Most were high. Biden's most recent report cards are from at least 15 years ago. In 2005-06 and 2003-04, he received a 100%. The link on the NAACP's website for the 2001-02 report card was broken. In the 1990s, he received grades of 90% or higher three times and received one 80%, one 70% and one 60%. In the earlier years, the report cards often reflected members' votes on about 10 issues while in later years it covered around 30 votes. That means that the more recent report cards provide more information on members' voting records. Thirty-six years ago, the Biden campaign pointed out, the Wilmington News Journal wrote that while the NAACP doesn't endorse, its materials show who they support. The newspaper described a voter education bulletin distributed in October 1984 by the Delaware State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. The bulletin 'makes clear that the NAACP backs two Democratic incumbents, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Rep. Thomas R. Carper, as well as Republican Battle R. Robinson for lieutenant governor,' the News Journal wrote. The group's voter information guide stated that Biden received a 90%. RELATED: Donald Trump said he's done more for African Americans than any president. Historians disagree | Our ruling Biden said, 'The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.' The NAACP does not endorse candidates. Biden's campaign said he was referring to past ratings by the NAACP when Biden was a U.S. senator. The civil rights organization gave him a grade of 90% or higher five times, though on three occasions in the 1990s he earned a lower score. Those grades show that Biden's record generally aligned with the NAACP's priorities for most of his tenure in the Senate. But it's not the same as an endorsement in a campaign. We rate this statement False. | [
"100281-proof-04-ddf21df4efed2ff9cd0cfaef28b7b321.jpg"
]
|
Photos show cemeteries and war memorials damaged during George Floyd demonstrations. | Contradiction | Recent social media posts showing photos of destruction blame demonstrators for disrespecting war memorials and cemeteries. 'I just don't understand,' reads a June 1 Facebook post showing rows of white crosses with American flags planted in the grass and many lying scattered across the ground. 'A picture of graffiti at another sacred place,' the post says about an image of a building with expletives and 'Amerikkka!' painted on the side. 'It speaks volumes.' In comments, the poster said the photos were from Arlington National Cemetery, the Oklahoma City National Memorial and an unknown 'combat vet memorial.' Another Facebook post shows the same photo of crosses, a photo of a cracked memorial to Lt. Michael P. Murphy, a deceased U.S. Navy SEAL, and a wall of names with graffiti over them. 'When is enough, enough, before We The People fight back against Soros funded AntiFU, BLMs and other radical groups that hate our nation for profit?' the June 2 post says. 'Pure Evil. These men and women died so that those thugs could be free and this is how they show their gratitude. It sickens me. Arlington Memorial Cemetery, Washington D.C.' These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's why: None of these photos are from the Arlington National Cemetery, and all but one are from previous years, unrelated to the protests that started over George Floyd's death after a police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. Let's take these one by one. The photo of the fallen crosses is from May 2016, when a man in Henderson, Ky., was accused of driving a car through a Memorial Day display in the city's Central Park. The man, who reportedly said he was intoxicated at the time, was convicted the following year. The second photo is an AFP image taken by Daniel Slim. The graffiti was 'left by demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd' in Lafayette Square, according to the caption. The building is not a memorial; a spokesperson for the U.S. Park Police told PolitiFact it was a public bathroom. The cracked memorial to Murphy, who was killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2005, was vandalized in July 2018. A teenage boy was arrested after the stone engraved with Murphy's image was found smashed at a lake on New York's Long Island, Stars and Stripes reported at the time. And, finally, that image of graffiti covering rows of names? It's a Vietnam memorial in Venice, Calif., that was vandalized in 2016. We rate these Facebook posts False. | We rate these Facebook posts False. | []
|
Photos show cemeteries and war memorials damaged during George Floyd demonstrations. | Contradiction | Recent social media posts showing photos of destruction blame demonstrators for disrespecting war memorials and cemeteries. 'I just don't understand,' reads a June 1 Facebook post showing rows of white crosses with American flags planted in the grass and many lying scattered across the ground. 'A picture of graffiti at another sacred place,' the post says about an image of a building with expletives and 'Amerikkka!' painted on the side. 'It speaks volumes.' In comments, the poster said the photos were from Arlington National Cemetery, the Oklahoma City National Memorial and an unknown 'combat vet memorial.' Another Facebook post shows the same photo of crosses, a photo of a cracked memorial to Lt. Michael P. Murphy, a deceased U.S. Navy SEAL, and a wall of names with graffiti over them. 'When is enough, enough, before We The People fight back against Soros funded AntiFU, BLMs and other radical groups that hate our nation for profit?' the June 2 post says. 'Pure Evil. These men and women died so that those thugs could be free and this is how they show their gratitude. It sickens me. Arlington Memorial Cemetery, Washington D.C.' These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's why: None of these photos are from the Arlington National Cemetery, and all but one are from previous years, unrelated to the protests that started over George Floyd's death after a police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. Let's take these one by one. The photo of the fallen crosses is from May 2016, when a man in Henderson, Ky., was accused of driving a car through a Memorial Day display in the city's Central Park. The man, who reportedly said he was intoxicated at the time, was convicted the following year. The second photo is an AFP image taken by Daniel Slim. The graffiti was 'left by demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd' in Lafayette Square, according to the caption. The building is not a memorial; a spokesperson for the U.S. Park Police told PolitiFact it was a public bathroom. The cracked memorial to Murphy, who was killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2005, was vandalized in July 2018. A teenage boy was arrested after the stone engraved with Murphy's image was found smashed at a lake on New York's Long Island, Stars and Stripes reported at the time. And, finally, that image of graffiti covering rows of names? It's a Vietnam memorial in Venice, Calif., that was vandalized in 2016. We rate these Facebook posts False. | We rate these Facebook posts False. | []
|
'The person that shot Ashli Babbitt - boom - right through the head - just boom - there was no reason for that. | Contradiction | During a press conference to announce that he was filing a lawsuit against several social media giants, former President Donald Trump answered a question about the event that triggered his removal from Facebook and Twitter: the storming of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6. A reporter asked Trump, 'Because so much of your banning (on social media platforms) has to do with comments you made around Jan. 6, just to clarify further, what did you do to stop the insurrection as some people call it, and why were you not able to stop it?' In his answer, Trump called the storming of the Capitol an 'unfortunate event' and pivoted to the death of Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old San Diego woman who was shot and killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer when a crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the House chamber. 'The person that shot Ashli Babbitt - boom - right through the head - just boom - there was no reason for that,' Trump said. 'And why isn't that person being opened up, and why isn't that being studied? They've already written it off. They said that case is closed. If that were the opposite, that case would be going on for years and years, and it would not be pretty.' First, we should note that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for Washington, D.C., determined that Babbitt was struck in the front left shoulder, not the head. Beyond that, Trump's assertion that 'there was no reason' for the shooting goes beyond saying that, in his opinion, the shooting was unjustified. Rather, he's saying there's no possible argument to support it. However, even if one disagrees with the Justice Department's determination not to prosecute the officer for the shooting, video evidence demonstrates that the officer was facing an angry mob near the House chamber. Experts told PolitiFact that the situation involved a risk of serious bodily harm to either law enforcement or lawmakers, which is a longstanding defense made and upheld by the courts in police shootings. The former president's office did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A sign against wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus covers the office door of Fowler's Pool Services and Supply Inc. Ashli Babbitt, listed as an owner of Fowler's, was shot and killed during the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. (AP) The shooting Babbitt was a 14-year Air Force veteran who served four tours as a high-level security official, KUSI-TV in San Diego reported. Her husband told the station she was an avid Trump supporter. Babbitt also sent 21 tweets referencing the QAnon conspiracy beginning in February 2020, according to the Daily Beast. The site reported that Babbitt posted Jan. 5 that the United States would soon see 'The Storm,' a day of reckoning the conspiracy theorists believed was coming for deep-state pedophiles, sex traffickers and Trump opponents. On Jan. 5 she flew from her home in San Diego to Washington to attend the 'stop the steal' rally where Trump would speak, according to the investigative website Bellingcat. In a video obtained by TMZ, she described 'a sea of nothing but red, white and blue, patriots and Trump. And it was amazing, you could see the president talk.' She entered the building when other rioters breached the building. The deadly showdown occurred in a corridor known as the Speaker's Lobby; the lobby is a formal, ornately decorated space that leads directly to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Capitol Police had used furniture to barricade a glass door to prevent rioters from getting near the lawmakers. The Speaker's Lobby (U.S. House of Representatives) Video footage (warning, graphic content) shows a plain-clothes officer standing with a gun drawn in the Speaker's Lobby. The officer fired once as Babbitt was climbing through a broken window adjoining the door. (The officer's name has not been released, though Babbitt's husband has sued seeking to release the name.) Babbitt fell to the floor, where she was immediately treated by uniformed officers on her side of the barricade. A Jan. 7 news release from the Capitol Police said she was taken to a nearby hospital where she died of her injuries. A witness account that Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., shared with 'Good Morning America' on Jan. 7 fits with this account. Mullin was in the Speaker's Lobby behind the officer who shot and killed Babbitt. He said that 'when they broke the glass in the back, the (police) lieutenant that was there, him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this, and he didn't have a choice at that time. ... The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he (drew) his weapon, that's a decision that's very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force.' A Jan. 7 statement by Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund confirmed that Babbitt was shot by a sworn Capitol Police officer who was later placed on administrative leave, in line with agency policy. 'As protesters were forcing their way toward the House Chamber where Members of Congress were sheltering in place, a sworn (Capitol Police) employee discharged their service weapon, striking an adult female,' Sund said in his statement, referring to Babbitt. The decision not to prosecute On April 14, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division jointly announced that there was 'insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution' against the officer who shot Babbitt. The department said: 'The investigation determined that, on Jan. 6, 2021, Ms. Babbitt joined a crowd of people that gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds to protest the results of the 2020 presidential election. ... The investigation further determined that Ms. Babbitt was among a mob of people that entered the Capitol building and gained access to a hallway outside the Speaker's Lobby, which leads to the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. ... 'As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors, Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out. An officer inside the Speaker's Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor.' The department concluded that it was unable to find sufficient evidence that a federal criminal civil rights statute was violated. 'Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so 'willfully,' which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law,' the department said. 'As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required.' Investigators concluded that there was 'no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,' the department said. What do experts say? We asked several law-enforcement experts whether they saw any justification for Trump's assertion that there was 'no reason' for the officer to have shot Babbitt. They agreed that the department made the right decision not to prosecute the officer. 'It is very easy, of course, to play Monday-morning police officer and second-guess quick decisions made at the time,' said James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist. 'There was clearly a risk of serious bodily harm to the officers and everyone they were protecting, justifying the use of deadly force in defense of self and others.' Fox added that it's also worth keeping in mind 'the high stakes given the important roles of those being protected,' even though that is not written into the relevant statutes. Philip Stinson, a Bowling Green State University criminologist, agreed. 'A police officer is justified in using deadly force when that officer has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death being imposed against the officer or someone else,' Stinson said. 'Mr. Trump is wrong in stating that there was 'no reason' to shoot Ms. Babbitt.' Greg Meyer, a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain, said that less harmful measures to subdue the rioters, such as pepper spray or warning shots, should be weighed in after-the-fact analyses of how to handle such situations in the future. But he added that any assumption that these alternatives should have been pursued would be 'a matter of speculation based on 20/20 hindsight.' 'The reason the officer fired at Ms. Babbitt was because a violent mob was taking over the Capitol and causing police to evacuate House and Senate members out of fear for their lives,' Meyer said. | Our ruling Trump said that 'the person that shot Ashli Babbitt - boom - right through the head - just boom - there was no reason for that.' Babbitt was fatally shot in the shoulder, not the head. As for Trump's assertion that 'there was no reason' for the shooting, this means there's no possible argument to support it. But the angry mob that prompted the shooting was captured on video, and at least one member of Congress directly witnessed it. Experts said that, according to the video evidence, the situation involved a risk of serious bodily harm to either law enforcement or lawmakers, which is a longstanding defense made and upheld by the courts in police shootings. We rate the statement False. Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | [
"100285-proof-14-0098515f1aebc07c65c56d1370d592cc.jpg"
]
|
'The person that shot Ashli Babbitt - boom - right through the head - just boom - there was no reason for that. | Contradiction | During a press conference to announce that he was filing a lawsuit against several social media giants, former President Donald Trump answered a question about the event that triggered his removal from Facebook and Twitter: the storming of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6. A reporter asked Trump, 'Because so much of your banning (on social media platforms) has to do with comments you made around Jan. 6, just to clarify further, what did you do to stop the insurrection as some people call it, and why were you not able to stop it?' In his answer, Trump called the storming of the Capitol an 'unfortunate event' and pivoted to the death of Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old San Diego woman who was shot and killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer when a crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the House chamber. 'The person that shot Ashli Babbitt - boom - right through the head - just boom - there was no reason for that,' Trump said. 'And why isn't that person being opened up, and why isn't that being studied? They've already written it off. They said that case is closed. If that were the opposite, that case would be going on for years and years, and it would not be pretty.' First, we should note that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for Washington, D.C., determined that Babbitt was struck in the front left shoulder, not the head. Beyond that, Trump's assertion that 'there was no reason' for the shooting goes beyond saying that, in his opinion, the shooting was unjustified. Rather, he's saying there's no possible argument to support it. However, even if one disagrees with the Justice Department's determination not to prosecute the officer for the shooting, video evidence demonstrates that the officer was facing an angry mob near the House chamber. Experts told PolitiFact that the situation involved a risk of serious bodily harm to either law enforcement or lawmakers, which is a longstanding defense made and upheld by the courts in police shootings. The former president's office did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A sign against wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus covers the office door of Fowler's Pool Services and Supply Inc. Ashli Babbitt, listed as an owner of Fowler's, was shot and killed during the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. (AP) The shooting Babbitt was a 14-year Air Force veteran who served four tours as a high-level security official, KUSI-TV in San Diego reported. Her husband told the station she was an avid Trump supporter. Babbitt also sent 21 tweets referencing the QAnon conspiracy beginning in February 2020, according to the Daily Beast. The site reported that Babbitt posted Jan. 5 that the United States would soon see 'The Storm,' a day of reckoning the conspiracy theorists believed was coming for deep-state pedophiles, sex traffickers and Trump opponents. On Jan. 5 she flew from her home in San Diego to Washington to attend the 'stop the steal' rally where Trump would speak, according to the investigative website Bellingcat. In a video obtained by TMZ, she described 'a sea of nothing but red, white and blue, patriots and Trump. And it was amazing, you could see the president talk.' She entered the building when other rioters breached the building. The deadly showdown occurred in a corridor known as the Speaker's Lobby; the lobby is a formal, ornately decorated space that leads directly to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Capitol Police had used furniture to barricade a glass door to prevent rioters from getting near the lawmakers. The Speaker's Lobby (U.S. House of Representatives) Video footage (warning, graphic content) shows a plain-clothes officer standing with a gun drawn in the Speaker's Lobby. The officer fired once as Babbitt was climbing through a broken window adjoining the door. (The officer's name has not been released, though Babbitt's husband has sued seeking to release the name.) Babbitt fell to the floor, where she was immediately treated by uniformed officers on her side of the barricade. A Jan. 7 news release from the Capitol Police said she was taken to a nearby hospital where she died of her injuries. A witness account that Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., shared with 'Good Morning America' on Jan. 7 fits with this account. Mullin was in the Speaker's Lobby behind the officer who shot and killed Babbitt. He said that 'when they broke the glass in the back, the (police) lieutenant that was there, him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this, and he didn't have a choice at that time. ... The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he (drew) his weapon, that's a decision that's very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force.' A Jan. 7 statement by Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund confirmed that Babbitt was shot by a sworn Capitol Police officer who was later placed on administrative leave, in line with agency policy. 'As protesters were forcing their way toward the House Chamber where Members of Congress were sheltering in place, a sworn (Capitol Police) employee discharged their service weapon, striking an adult female,' Sund said in his statement, referring to Babbitt. The decision not to prosecute On April 14, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division jointly announced that there was 'insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution' against the officer who shot Babbitt. The department said: 'The investigation determined that, on Jan. 6, 2021, Ms. Babbitt joined a crowd of people that gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds to protest the results of the 2020 presidential election. ... The investigation further determined that Ms. Babbitt was among a mob of people that entered the Capitol building and gained access to a hallway outside the Speaker's Lobby, which leads to the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. ... 'As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors, Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out. An officer inside the Speaker's Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor.' The department concluded that it was unable to find sufficient evidence that a federal criminal civil rights statute was violated. 'Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so 'willfully,' which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law,' the department said. 'As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required.' Investigators concluded that there was 'no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,' the department said. What do experts say? We asked several law-enforcement experts whether they saw any justification for Trump's assertion that there was 'no reason' for the officer to have shot Babbitt. They agreed that the department made the right decision not to prosecute the officer. 'It is very easy, of course, to play Monday-morning police officer and second-guess quick decisions made at the time,' said James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist. 'There was clearly a risk of serious bodily harm to the officers and everyone they were protecting, justifying the use of deadly force in defense of self and others.' Fox added that it's also worth keeping in mind 'the high stakes given the important roles of those being protected,' even though that is not written into the relevant statutes. Philip Stinson, a Bowling Green State University criminologist, agreed. 'A police officer is justified in using deadly force when that officer has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death being imposed against the officer or someone else,' Stinson said. 'Mr. Trump is wrong in stating that there was 'no reason' to shoot Ms. Babbitt.' Greg Meyer, a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain, said that less harmful measures to subdue the rioters, such as pepper spray or warning shots, should be weighed in after-the-fact analyses of how to handle such situations in the future. But he added that any assumption that these alternatives should have been pursued would be 'a matter of speculation based on 20/20 hindsight.' 'The reason the officer fired at Ms. Babbitt was because a violent mob was taking over the Capitol and causing police to evacuate House and Senate members out of fear for their lives,' Meyer said. | Our ruling Trump said that 'the person that shot Ashli Babbitt - boom - right through the head - just boom - there was no reason for that.' Babbitt was fatally shot in the shoulder, not the head. As for Trump's assertion that 'there was no reason' for the shooting, this means there's no possible argument to support it. But the angry mob that prompted the shooting was captured on video, and at least one member of Congress directly witnessed it. Experts said that, according to the video evidence, the situation involved a risk of serious bodily harm to either law enforcement or lawmakers, which is a longstanding defense made and upheld by the courts in police shootings. We rate the statement False. Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | [
"100285-proof-14-0098515f1aebc07c65c56d1370d592cc.jpg"
]
|
'Pfizer and Moderna could share their design with dozens of other pharma companies who stand ready to produce their vaccines and end the pandemic. | Contradiction | Vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna earned praise for creating highly effective COVID-19 vaccines in record time. But are they inadvertently hurting the public by not sharing their technology with other pharmaceutical companies to help speed up vaccine manufacturing and distribution? That's what one post circulating on social media claims. 'The vaccine shortage doesn't need to exist,' reads an image of a tweet shared thousands of times on Facebook. 'Pfizer and Moderna could share their design with dozens of other pharma companies who stand ready to produce their vaccines and end the pandemic.' In short, the situation is not that simple. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This tweet doesn't mention that the two pharmaceutical companies are already partnering with other firms to produce the vaccine. It also makes it appear as if dozens of companies are regulated to make vaccines and have a ready supply of the raw materials, equipment and storage needed to efficiently and effectively produce them. Experts say that's not the case. When PolitiFact reached out to the tweet's author, Dr. James Hamblin, a public health policy lecturer at Yale University and writer at The Atlantic, he acknowledged that using the words 'stand ready' in the tweet inaccurately implied the process could begin immediately. 'It takes time and investment to begin making mRNA vaccines,' Hamblin told PolitiFact. 'The companies would need the assurance that they not lose money by getting into that space, possibly in some way similar to the assurances given during the research phase of warp speed.' Vaccine technology narrows the field Both Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines rely on newer messenger RNA technology. (It has been studied for some time, but hasn't been used in a vaccine until now.) The mRNA is fragile and needs to be handled carefully, with specific temperatures and humidity levels to keep it from breaking down. It's highly unlikely, experts say, that 'dozens' of manufacturing plants have the capability to get this type of production off the ground immediately. Even if Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna made their vaccine designs open source today, pharmaceutical researchers estimate that it would still take several months for other companies to produce the shots, and by then mass distribution and inoculation will be well underway. PolitiFact reached out to both companies for comment but did not hear back. Dr. Rajeev Venkayya - president of the Global Vaccine Business Unit at Takeda Pharmaceuticals and former director of vaccine delivery at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Health Program - wrote a Twitter thread addressing the complexity and risk of vaccine manufacturing. Among many issues, Venyakka said that vaccines are complex biologics and it's hard to predict whether changes to the manufacturing process will impact vaccine efficacy or safety. 'Many vaccines are made by growing viruses in cells, and when that doesn't happen as expected, it can lead to losses in production and delayed timelines. This is an area where cell- and virus-free mRNA vaccine production has a major advantage,' Venkayya wrote. 'For these reasons, every aspect of vaccine manufacturing is tightly controlled: raw materials, equipment, production processes, training, operating procedures etc. All of it happens under GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) regulations, and facilities are regularly inspected.' THREAD: Vaccine Manufacturing Back in October, I said the Warp Speed timelines were extraordinarily optimistic given the inherent risks of vaccine development, manufacturing and distribution. All of those risks and others have materialized. 1/https://t.co/OOlGxPBnox pic.twitter.com/RwCzkljdDS- Rajeev Venkayya MD (@rvenkayya) February 1, 2021 According to the Food and Drug Administration, manufacturers may share any information or data about their products as they choose, as they are the owners of the information. But the firm is responsible for ensuring that any contract manufacturer is in compliance with the FDA's good manufacturing practice regulations. These rules establish minimum requirements for the methods, facilities and controls used in making and packing pharmaceuticals. They aim to ensure that a product is safe for use, and that it has the ingredients and strength it claims to have. Existing partnerships are already speeding production John Grabenstein, associate director for scientific communications at the Immunization Action Coalition - a vaccine information organization that works in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - told PolitiFact the tweet wrongly presumes that the companies aren't already outsourcing production. Grabenstein tracks the partnerships between pharmaceutical firms and contract manufacturers. He said that Pfizer-BioNTech is currently working with bio-pharmaceutical companies Rentschler and Polymun, while Moderna has partnered with Rovi, Recipharm and Lonza. Some of the companies are located entirely overseas, while others have plants in the U.S. Typically, the contractors are doing one of the major portions of production, Grabenstein said, such as manufacturing the bulk product, formulation of the bulk into the final preparation, filling the drug product into vials, or finishing the final packaging which could include labeling vials, inserting them and paperwork into boxes and assembling boxes for a carton. For example, Rovi, one of the companies working with Moderna, signed a contract in July 2020 to start filling and packaging 100 million doses of the vaccine in early 2021. In fewer cases, a full-fledged manufacturer is commissioned to make a mirror image of the original product, from start to finish. One example of this is the Serum Institute of India - the world's largest vaccine manufacturer - which is already producing a parallel version of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine that the institute will market with the trade name CoviShield. The institute launched construction of new facilities back in June 2020 to make it happen. The organization recently announced a similar partnership with Novavax. 'This is incredibly intricate and the number of facilities and trained personnel is really, really small,' Grabenstein said. 'It's not like you're just giving a recipe to another restaurant. That 'recipe' is thousands and thousands of pages long, and then you have to validate and show that you meet all the really tight performance specifications and prove consistency of process before any of the regulators will let you distribute any of the vaccine.' Hamblin, the author of the Twitter post, said it's unlikely that the companies would share their vaccine designs, given the current system of intellectual property and funding, though he noted exceptions, like Sanofi. Sanofi, a French multinational pharmaceutical company, announced in January that it entered into a partnership with BioNTech, the firm that co-developed the vaccine with Pfizer. Sanofi said it will provide the firm access to its 'established infrastructure and expertise to produce over 125 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine in Europe.' Initial supplies will originate from Sanofi's production facilities in Frankfurt from summer of 2021. Hamblin noted that if vaccine makers open the intellectual property in a permanent, unconditional way - rather than on a small scale for a finite period - it could help get more companies and governments into the production 'in a more permanent, cost-effective way.' 'If we have to manufacture boosters in specific areas for new strains, for example, or for the next coronavirus, we could be on it right away,' Hamblin said. 'Again, speaking hypothetically about that - not implying it will happen or would be quick or easy or anything else.' Defense Production Act allows greater collaboration but takes time With President Joe Biden invoking the Defense Production Act, couldn't that serve to help speed things up? Yes, but it's not as sweeping as some think. The Defense Production Act of 1950 gives presidential authority to promote national defense by expediting and expanding the supply of materials and services from the U.S. industrial base. George Siber, a vaccine expert who is on the advisory board of CureVac, a German mRNA vaccine company, told Kaiser Health News that invoking the act would allow the government to commandeer an appropriate plant to expand production, but said it would still take about a year to get going. Companies would first have to undertake a thorough cleaning of their equipment and facilities to prevent cross-contamination and would need to set up, calibrate and test equipment, and train scientists and engineers to run it, Siber told KHN. 'Do you want glass? Aluminum? Filter resins? What is the thing that you need?' Grabenstein said. 'For example, vaccine manufacturers say, 'if only I had more glass vials, I could increase my weekly production.' Ok, the government gets you more glass vials. Then it reveals the next bottleneck.' He added: 'Is there production that could be stopped or delayed, and let those machines be used for this goal? Sure, but you still have to clean it, and quality control that it's really clean, and then the transfer and validation of process. It's months or years of commitment. This is not turn-on-a-dime kind of stuff.' According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 59 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines had been distributed and roughly 41 million administered by the second week in February. This shows that the U.S. has vaccinated 9.5% of the population, putting it about fifth in the world, according to a tracker maintained by The New York Times. | Our ruling A post claims the COVID-19 vaccine shortage doesn't need to exist because Pfizer and Moderna can share their vaccine designs with 'dozens' of other pharmaceutical companies that are ready to produce the vaccines and end the pandemic. This premise oversimplifies the vaccine manufacturing process. First, the post doesn't mention that Pfizer and Moderna already have partnerships with various contract manufacturers to help speed up vaccine production. Second, industry experts say it's highly unlikely that 'dozens' of other pharmaceutical companies that aren't already producing the vaccines stand ready to do so. Supplies, personnel training and facility compliance are just a few aspects that make the process complex and lengthy. So while such partnerships are clearly an asset to rapid vaccine production, they are not entirely practical in the grand sense that this tweet implies. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
'Pfizer and Moderna could share their design with dozens of other pharma companies who stand ready to produce their vaccines and end the pandemic. | Contradiction | Vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna earned praise for creating highly effective COVID-19 vaccines in record time. But are they inadvertently hurting the public by not sharing their technology with other pharmaceutical companies to help speed up vaccine manufacturing and distribution? That's what one post circulating on social media claims. 'The vaccine shortage doesn't need to exist,' reads an image of a tweet shared thousands of times on Facebook. 'Pfizer and Moderna could share their design with dozens of other pharma companies who stand ready to produce their vaccines and end the pandemic.' In short, the situation is not that simple. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This tweet doesn't mention that the two pharmaceutical companies are already partnering with other firms to produce the vaccine. It also makes it appear as if dozens of companies are regulated to make vaccines and have a ready supply of the raw materials, equipment and storage needed to efficiently and effectively produce them. Experts say that's not the case. When PolitiFact reached out to the tweet's author, Dr. James Hamblin, a public health policy lecturer at Yale University and writer at The Atlantic, he acknowledged that using the words 'stand ready' in the tweet inaccurately implied the process could begin immediately. 'It takes time and investment to begin making mRNA vaccines,' Hamblin told PolitiFact. 'The companies would need the assurance that they not lose money by getting into that space, possibly in some way similar to the assurances given during the research phase of warp speed.' Vaccine technology narrows the field Both Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines rely on newer messenger RNA technology. (It has been studied for some time, but hasn't been used in a vaccine until now.) The mRNA is fragile and needs to be handled carefully, with specific temperatures and humidity levels to keep it from breaking down. It's highly unlikely, experts say, that 'dozens' of manufacturing plants have the capability to get this type of production off the ground immediately. Even if Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna made their vaccine designs open source today, pharmaceutical researchers estimate that it would still take several months for other companies to produce the shots, and by then mass distribution and inoculation will be well underway. PolitiFact reached out to both companies for comment but did not hear back. Dr. Rajeev Venkayya - president of the Global Vaccine Business Unit at Takeda Pharmaceuticals and former director of vaccine delivery at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Health Program - wrote a Twitter thread addressing the complexity and risk of vaccine manufacturing. Among many issues, Venyakka said that vaccines are complex biologics and it's hard to predict whether changes to the manufacturing process will impact vaccine efficacy or safety. 'Many vaccines are made by growing viruses in cells, and when that doesn't happen as expected, it can lead to losses in production and delayed timelines. This is an area where cell- and virus-free mRNA vaccine production has a major advantage,' Venkayya wrote. 'For these reasons, every aspect of vaccine manufacturing is tightly controlled: raw materials, equipment, production processes, training, operating procedures etc. All of it happens under GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) regulations, and facilities are regularly inspected.' THREAD: Vaccine Manufacturing Back in October, I said the Warp Speed timelines were extraordinarily optimistic given the inherent risks of vaccine development, manufacturing and distribution. All of those risks and others have materialized. 1/https://t.co/OOlGxPBnox pic.twitter.com/RwCzkljdDS- Rajeev Venkayya MD (@rvenkayya) February 1, 2021 According to the Food and Drug Administration, manufacturers may share any information or data about their products as they choose, as they are the owners of the information. But the firm is responsible for ensuring that any contract manufacturer is in compliance with the FDA's good manufacturing practice regulations. These rules establish minimum requirements for the methods, facilities and controls used in making and packing pharmaceuticals. They aim to ensure that a product is safe for use, and that it has the ingredients and strength it claims to have. Existing partnerships are already speeding production John Grabenstein, associate director for scientific communications at the Immunization Action Coalition - a vaccine information organization that works in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - told PolitiFact the tweet wrongly presumes that the companies aren't already outsourcing production. Grabenstein tracks the partnerships between pharmaceutical firms and contract manufacturers. He said that Pfizer-BioNTech is currently working with bio-pharmaceutical companies Rentschler and Polymun, while Moderna has partnered with Rovi, Recipharm and Lonza. Some of the companies are located entirely overseas, while others have plants in the U.S. Typically, the contractors are doing one of the major portions of production, Grabenstein said, such as manufacturing the bulk product, formulation of the bulk into the final preparation, filling the drug product into vials, or finishing the final packaging which could include labeling vials, inserting them and paperwork into boxes and assembling boxes for a carton. For example, Rovi, one of the companies working with Moderna, signed a contract in July 2020 to start filling and packaging 100 million doses of the vaccine in early 2021. In fewer cases, a full-fledged manufacturer is commissioned to make a mirror image of the original product, from start to finish. One example of this is the Serum Institute of India - the world's largest vaccine manufacturer - which is already producing a parallel version of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine that the institute will market with the trade name CoviShield. The institute launched construction of new facilities back in June 2020 to make it happen. The organization recently announced a similar partnership with Novavax. 'This is incredibly intricate and the number of facilities and trained personnel is really, really small,' Grabenstein said. 'It's not like you're just giving a recipe to another restaurant. That 'recipe' is thousands and thousands of pages long, and then you have to validate and show that you meet all the really tight performance specifications and prove consistency of process before any of the regulators will let you distribute any of the vaccine.' Hamblin, the author of the Twitter post, said it's unlikely that the companies would share their vaccine designs, given the current system of intellectual property and funding, though he noted exceptions, like Sanofi. Sanofi, a French multinational pharmaceutical company, announced in January that it entered into a partnership with BioNTech, the firm that co-developed the vaccine with Pfizer. Sanofi said it will provide the firm access to its 'established infrastructure and expertise to produce over 125 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine in Europe.' Initial supplies will originate from Sanofi's production facilities in Frankfurt from summer of 2021. Hamblin noted that if vaccine makers open the intellectual property in a permanent, unconditional way - rather than on a small scale for a finite period - it could help get more companies and governments into the production 'in a more permanent, cost-effective way.' 'If we have to manufacture boosters in specific areas for new strains, for example, or for the next coronavirus, we could be on it right away,' Hamblin said. 'Again, speaking hypothetically about that - not implying it will happen or would be quick or easy or anything else.' Defense Production Act allows greater collaboration but takes time With President Joe Biden invoking the Defense Production Act, couldn't that serve to help speed things up? Yes, but it's not as sweeping as some think. The Defense Production Act of 1950 gives presidential authority to promote national defense by expediting and expanding the supply of materials and services from the U.S. industrial base. George Siber, a vaccine expert who is on the advisory board of CureVac, a German mRNA vaccine company, told Kaiser Health News that invoking the act would allow the government to commandeer an appropriate plant to expand production, but said it would still take about a year to get going. Companies would first have to undertake a thorough cleaning of their equipment and facilities to prevent cross-contamination and would need to set up, calibrate and test equipment, and train scientists and engineers to run it, Siber told KHN. 'Do you want glass? Aluminum? Filter resins? What is the thing that you need?' Grabenstein said. 'For example, vaccine manufacturers say, 'if only I had more glass vials, I could increase my weekly production.' Ok, the government gets you more glass vials. Then it reveals the next bottleneck.' He added: 'Is there production that could be stopped or delayed, and let those machines be used for this goal? Sure, but you still have to clean it, and quality control that it's really clean, and then the transfer and validation of process. It's months or years of commitment. This is not turn-on-a-dime kind of stuff.' According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 59 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines had been distributed and roughly 41 million administered by the second week in February. This shows that the U.S. has vaccinated 9.5% of the population, putting it about fifth in the world, according to a tracker maintained by The New York Times. | Our ruling A post claims the COVID-19 vaccine shortage doesn't need to exist because Pfizer and Moderna can share their vaccine designs with 'dozens' of other pharmaceutical companies that are ready to produce the vaccines and end the pandemic. This premise oversimplifies the vaccine manufacturing process. First, the post doesn't mention that Pfizer and Moderna already have partnerships with various contract manufacturers to help speed up vaccine production. Second, industry experts say it's highly unlikely that 'dozens' of other pharmaceutical companies that aren't already producing the vaccines stand ready to do so. Supplies, personnel training and facility compliance are just a few aspects that make the process complex and lengthy. So while such partnerships are clearly an asset to rapid vaccine production, they are not entirely practical in the grand sense that this tweet implies. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
NFL will fly a ''Black Lives Matter' flag under the American flag at games. | Contradiction | On the same day that NASCAR announced it was banning the Confederate flag from its races, Facebook users started to share rumors about another race-related change at sporting events. A June 10 text post claims that the NFL is planning to fly a ''Black Lives Matter' flag under the American flag at games.' 'Your thoughts?' asks the post, which was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The rumor was published as tens of thousands of Americans across the country peacefully protest against police brutality and discrimination against black Americans. The protests began after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to the original poster for their evidence, but they didn't supply any. Instead, they deleted the post. (We found several similar posts from conservative Facebook pages.) While NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a recent statement that 'black lives matter,' there is no evidence that the league is planning to fly a flag associated with the movement at football games. On June 5, the NFL released a video of Goodell talking about 'racism and the systematic oppression of Black People.' 'We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier, and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest,' he said. 'We, the National Football League, believe black lives matter. I personally protest with you and want to be part of the much-needed change in this country.' We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter. #InspireChange pic.twitter.com/ENWQP8A0sv- NFL (@NFL) June 5, 2020 The video was a nod to Colin Kaepernick, a civil rights activist and former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, though Goodell did not mention him by name. Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013, returned to the spotlight during the 2016 season for choosing to sit or kneel during the pregame national anthem in protest of police brutality and discrimination against black Americans - a move that the NFL did not endorse. Kaepernick has not played in the NFL since that season. His 2017 grievance against the league, alleging that NFL teams colluded to keep him off their rosters, was settled in 2019. Nowhere in Goodell's statement did he say that the NFL would fly a Black Lives Matter flag at football games. We could find no such promise on the league's Twitter page, its website or reported in the media. We reached out to the NFL for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100319-proof-17-Screen_Shot_2020-06-12_at_12.06.10_PM.jpg",
"100319-proof-27-0eeea8da659632bfc61a64f20032c02c.jpg"
]
|
NFL will fly a ''Black Lives Matter' flag under the American flag at games. | Contradiction | On the same day that NASCAR announced it was banning the Confederate flag from its races, Facebook users started to share rumors about another race-related change at sporting events. A June 10 text post claims that the NFL is planning to fly a ''Black Lives Matter' flag under the American flag at games.' 'Your thoughts?' asks the post, which was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The rumor was published as tens of thousands of Americans across the country peacefully protest against police brutality and discrimination against black Americans. The protests began after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to the original poster for their evidence, but they didn't supply any. Instead, they deleted the post. (We found several similar posts from conservative Facebook pages.) While NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a recent statement that 'black lives matter,' there is no evidence that the league is planning to fly a flag associated with the movement at football games. On June 5, the NFL released a video of Goodell talking about 'racism and the systematic oppression of Black People.' 'We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier, and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest,' he said. 'We, the National Football League, believe black lives matter. I personally protest with you and want to be part of the much-needed change in this country.' We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter. #InspireChange pic.twitter.com/ENWQP8A0sv- NFL (@NFL) June 5, 2020 The video was a nod to Colin Kaepernick, a civil rights activist and former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, though Goodell did not mention him by name. Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013, returned to the spotlight during the 2016 season for choosing to sit or kneel during the pregame national anthem in protest of police brutality and discrimination against black Americans - a move that the NFL did not endorse. Kaepernick has not played in the NFL since that season. His 2017 grievance against the league, alleging that NFL teams colluded to keep him off their rosters, was settled in 2019. Nowhere in Goodell's statement did he say that the NFL would fly a Black Lives Matter flag at football games. We could find no such promise on the league's Twitter page, its website or reported in the media. We reached out to the NFL for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100319-proof-17-Screen_Shot_2020-06-12_at_12.06.10_PM.jpg",
"100319-proof-27-0eeea8da659632bfc61a64f20032c02c.jpg"
]
|
Congressional benefits include 'free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. | Contradiction | Facebook users are recirculating an old post that accuses members of Congress of enjoying more luxurious employment benefits than their constituents do. 'Take a look at the congressional benefits,' says the Oct. 10, 2019, Facebook post, which was shared thousands of times. 'Free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days; now THAT'S welfare.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post mirrors other claims PolitiFact has fact-checked about lawmaker salaries, which haven't increased since 2009, and retirement benefits. We reached out to Demian Brady, director of research at the National Taxpayers Union, and Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute, to understand what benefits actually come with a seat in Congress. 'A lot of this stuff is an exaggeration,' Strand said of the Facebook post. On health care The Facebook post claims lawmakers get 'free health care,' but Brady said their coverage would be better described as 'highly subsidized.' It's not free. Members of Congress are eligible to get insurance through DC Health Link, the exchange marketplace for Washington, D.C., under the Affordable Care Act. The FAQ page on DC Health Link's website lists 'members of Congress' among its eligible recipients. The federal government kicks in 72% of the premium costs, Brady said. That lines up with what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote in a 2017 report. 'They get subsidized just like every federal employee,' Strand said, adding that members can also opt to get coverage through a spouse's employer-based insurance if they prefer. For comparison, employers in the U.S. contributed, on average, roughly 71% of the premium for family coverage and roughly 83% of the premium for single coverage in 2020, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey of private and non-federal public employers. On retirement Whether congressional retirement benefits are 'outrageous,' as the Facebook post claims, is a matter of opinion. But they are 'generous compared to the private sector,' Brady said. Members of Congress - save for the few elected prior to 1984 - belong to a pension program known as the Federal Employees' Retirement System. The program is available to every federal employee, not just lawmakers, as PolitiFact previously reported. And it augments other benefits available to seniors. 'They do pay Medicare, just like every other American,' Strand said. 'They do pay into Social Security, and they do have this federal retirement.' The FERS program qualifies members for a pension after five years of service, with previous work as a federal employee counting toward the vesting period. Those lawmakers must contribute part of their congressional salary into the pension plan in order to be eligible for the benefit. To collect, the lawmaker must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of federal service, or be any age with 25 years of service. The size of a lawmaker's pension depends on several factors, including the length of their service. But Brady said the pension for eligible members pays two to three times more than pensions offered to similarly-salaried workers in the private sector. In the private sector, about 67% of workers have access to defined-benefit or defined-contribution retirement plans, and about 51% participate, according to the Congressional Research Service. On time off The Facebook post claims that members of Congress get '67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, (and) unlimited paid sick days.' That's misleading. The 2021 legislative calendar listed by House Majority Steny Hoyer, D-Md., includes only 10 federal holidays that all federal employees get off - not 67. Defining vacation days, meanwhile, is tricky. Members of Congress split time between Washington and their homes states or districts, and they may still be working during recess periods, so time away from Washington shouldn't be confused with vacation, Strand said. 'There is no provision for vacation days,' Brady added. 'When Congress is not in session, members often work in their districts, but they make their own schedules.' As for sick days, members can take time off when they are sick or for other reasons. As PolitiFact has reported, members who are absent from votes often enter statements in the Congressional Record to reflect how they would have voted if they had been present. (Since May and throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the House has used a proxy voting system that lets absent members authorize a colleague to cast their vote for them.) There's no limit on sick days or time off for members, Brady said, noting that former Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois missed the better part of a year after suffering a stroke in 2012. 'Usually when people are running for president, they don't show up for Congress at all, for months on end,' Strand said. Private industry workers get an average of eight paid holidays, seven paid sick leave days and 11 paid vacation days per year after one year of work, according to a March 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. | Our ruling A Facebook post said congressional benefits include 'free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.' The post gets more details wrong than right. Lawmakers can take absences when they are sick, and they do have generous pension plans. But they do not get free health care, and they do not take 67 paid holidays. There isn't a provision governing their vacation days, either. We'll rate this post Mostly False. | [
"100323-proof-18-297680bbec487e17fa6b032121c9361e.jpg"
]
|
Congressional benefits include 'free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. | Contradiction | Facebook users are recirculating an old post that accuses members of Congress of enjoying more luxurious employment benefits than their constituents do. 'Take a look at the congressional benefits,' says the Oct. 10, 2019, Facebook post, which was shared thousands of times. 'Free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days; now THAT'S welfare.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post mirrors other claims PolitiFact has fact-checked about lawmaker salaries, which haven't increased since 2009, and retirement benefits. We reached out to Demian Brady, director of research at the National Taxpayers Union, and Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute, to understand what benefits actually come with a seat in Congress. 'A lot of this stuff is an exaggeration,' Strand said of the Facebook post. On health care The Facebook post claims lawmakers get 'free health care,' but Brady said their coverage would be better described as 'highly subsidized.' It's not free. Members of Congress are eligible to get insurance through DC Health Link, the exchange marketplace for Washington, D.C., under the Affordable Care Act. The FAQ page on DC Health Link's website lists 'members of Congress' among its eligible recipients. The federal government kicks in 72% of the premium costs, Brady said. That lines up with what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote in a 2017 report. 'They get subsidized just like every federal employee,' Strand said, adding that members can also opt to get coverage through a spouse's employer-based insurance if they prefer. For comparison, employers in the U.S. contributed, on average, roughly 71% of the premium for family coverage and roughly 83% of the premium for single coverage in 2020, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey of private and non-federal public employers. On retirement Whether congressional retirement benefits are 'outrageous,' as the Facebook post claims, is a matter of opinion. But they are 'generous compared to the private sector,' Brady said. Members of Congress - save for the few elected prior to 1984 - belong to a pension program known as the Federal Employees' Retirement System. The program is available to every federal employee, not just lawmakers, as PolitiFact previously reported. And it augments other benefits available to seniors. 'They do pay Medicare, just like every other American,' Strand said. 'They do pay into Social Security, and they do have this federal retirement.' The FERS program qualifies members for a pension after five years of service, with previous work as a federal employee counting toward the vesting period. Those lawmakers must contribute part of their congressional salary into the pension plan in order to be eligible for the benefit. To collect, the lawmaker must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of federal service, or be any age with 25 years of service. The size of a lawmaker's pension depends on several factors, including the length of their service. But Brady said the pension for eligible members pays two to three times more than pensions offered to similarly-salaried workers in the private sector. In the private sector, about 67% of workers have access to defined-benefit or defined-contribution retirement plans, and about 51% participate, according to the Congressional Research Service. On time off The Facebook post claims that members of Congress get '67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, (and) unlimited paid sick days.' That's misleading. The 2021 legislative calendar listed by House Majority Steny Hoyer, D-Md., includes only 10 federal holidays that all federal employees get off - not 67. Defining vacation days, meanwhile, is tricky. Members of Congress split time between Washington and their homes states or districts, and they may still be working during recess periods, so time away from Washington shouldn't be confused with vacation, Strand said. 'There is no provision for vacation days,' Brady added. 'When Congress is not in session, members often work in their districts, but they make their own schedules.' As for sick days, members can take time off when they are sick or for other reasons. As PolitiFact has reported, members who are absent from votes often enter statements in the Congressional Record to reflect how they would have voted if they had been present. (Since May and throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the House has used a proxy voting system that lets absent members authorize a colleague to cast their vote for them.) There's no limit on sick days or time off for members, Brady said, noting that former Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois missed the better part of a year after suffering a stroke in 2012. 'Usually when people are running for president, they don't show up for Congress at all, for months on end,' Strand said. Private industry workers get an average of eight paid holidays, seven paid sick leave days and 11 paid vacation days per year after one year of work, according to a March 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. | Our ruling A Facebook post said congressional benefits include 'free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.' The post gets more details wrong than right. Lawmakers can take absences when they are sick, and they do have generous pension plans. But they do not get free health care, and they do not take 67 paid holidays. There isn't a provision governing their vacation days, either. We'll rate this post Mostly False. | [
"100323-proof-18-297680bbec487e17fa6b032121c9361e.jpg"
]
|
Congressional benefits include 'free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. | Contradiction | Facebook users are recirculating an old post that accuses members of Congress of enjoying more luxurious employment benefits than their constituents do. 'Take a look at the congressional benefits,' says the Oct. 10, 2019, Facebook post, which was shared thousands of times. 'Free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days; now THAT'S welfare.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post mirrors other claims PolitiFact has fact-checked about lawmaker salaries, which haven't increased since 2009, and retirement benefits. We reached out to Demian Brady, director of research at the National Taxpayers Union, and Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute, to understand what benefits actually come with a seat in Congress. 'A lot of this stuff is an exaggeration,' Strand said of the Facebook post. On health care The Facebook post claims lawmakers get 'free health care,' but Brady said their coverage would be better described as 'highly subsidized.' It's not free. Members of Congress are eligible to get insurance through DC Health Link, the exchange marketplace for Washington, D.C., under the Affordable Care Act. The FAQ page on DC Health Link's website lists 'members of Congress' among its eligible recipients. The federal government kicks in 72% of the premium costs, Brady said. That lines up with what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote in a 2017 report. 'They get subsidized just like every federal employee,' Strand said, adding that members can also opt to get coverage through a spouse's employer-based insurance if they prefer. For comparison, employers in the U.S. contributed, on average, roughly 71% of the premium for family coverage and roughly 83% of the premium for single coverage in 2020, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey of private and non-federal public employers. On retirement Whether congressional retirement benefits are 'outrageous,' as the Facebook post claims, is a matter of opinion. But they are 'generous compared to the private sector,' Brady said. Members of Congress - save for the few elected prior to 1984 - belong to a pension program known as the Federal Employees' Retirement System. The program is available to every federal employee, not just lawmakers, as PolitiFact previously reported. And it augments other benefits available to seniors. 'They do pay Medicare, just like every other American,' Strand said. 'They do pay into Social Security, and they do have this federal retirement.' The FERS program qualifies members for a pension after five years of service, with previous work as a federal employee counting toward the vesting period. Those lawmakers must contribute part of their congressional salary into the pension plan in order to be eligible for the benefit. To collect, the lawmaker must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of federal service, or be any age with 25 years of service. The size of a lawmaker's pension depends on several factors, including the length of their service. But Brady said the pension for eligible members pays two to three times more than pensions offered to similarly-salaried workers in the private sector. In the private sector, about 67% of workers have access to defined-benefit or defined-contribution retirement plans, and about 51% participate, according to the Congressional Research Service. On time off The Facebook post claims that members of Congress get '67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, (and) unlimited paid sick days.' That's misleading. The 2021 legislative calendar listed by House Majority Steny Hoyer, D-Md., includes only 10 federal holidays that all federal employees get off - not 67. Defining vacation days, meanwhile, is tricky. Members of Congress split time between Washington and their homes states or districts, and they may still be working during recess periods, so time away from Washington shouldn't be confused with vacation, Strand said. 'There is no provision for vacation days,' Brady added. 'When Congress is not in session, members often work in their districts, but they make their own schedules.' As for sick days, members can take time off when they are sick or for other reasons. As PolitiFact has reported, members who are absent from votes often enter statements in the Congressional Record to reflect how they would have voted if they had been present. (Since May and throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the House has used a proxy voting system that lets absent members authorize a colleague to cast their vote for them.) There's no limit on sick days or time off for members, Brady said, noting that former Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois missed the better part of a year after suffering a stroke in 2012. 'Usually when people are running for president, they don't show up for Congress at all, for months on end,' Strand said. Private industry workers get an average of eight paid holidays, seven paid sick leave days and 11 paid vacation days per year after one year of work, according to a March 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. | Our ruling A Facebook post said congressional benefits include 'free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.' The post gets more details wrong than right. Lawmakers can take absences when they are sick, and they do have generous pension plans. But they do not get free health care, and they do not take 67 paid holidays. There isn't a provision governing their vacation days, either. We'll rate this post Mostly False. | [
"100323-proof-18-297680bbec487e17fa6b032121c9361e.jpg"
]
|
Says Jared Kushner 'deleted all of his tweets after the tax story broke. | Contradiction | Recent revelations about President Donald Trump's tax history sparked misinformation about the online activity of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. One Facebook post claims Kushner, Trump's senior adviser, deleted all of his tweets after the New York Times published its investigation of the president's tax returns on Sept. 27. 'Shoutout to Jared Kushner who deleted all of his tweets after the tax story broke,' the post reads. 'Genius. No way anyone has copies of that s---.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is wrong. PolitiFact searched archived versions of Kushner's Twitter profile to determine that he hasn't had tweets on his account in many years. There were no tweets to delete. According to Kushner's verified Twitter profile, he joined the site in April 2009 and he currently has '0 Tweets.' This is consistent with archived versions of Kushner's Twitter profile from years past. One of the earliest archived versions of Kushner's profile from April 5, 2011, shows that he had tweeted three times, mostly about his decision to join Twitter. In March 2014, those were still the only tweets on Kushner's profile. By Oct. 18, 2016, those tweets were deleted.'@jaredkushner hasn't tweeted yet,' the archived Twitter profile reads. Another version of the profile archived on the website archive.today confirms Kushner had no tweets on his account as of Jan. 10, 2017, more than a week before Trump took office. Similarly, as of Aug. 17, 2020 - a little more than a month before the New York Times investigation brought Trump's tax history back into the spotlight on Sept. 27 - Kushner still had no tweets on his account. '@jaredkushner hasn't Tweeted,' the archived Twitter profile reads. 'When they do, their Tweets will show up here.' We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | [
"100326-proof-10-04b5767c16b382befcc51459af780dab.jpg"
]
|
Says Jared Kushner 'deleted all of his tweets after the tax story broke. | Contradiction | Recent revelations about President Donald Trump's tax history sparked misinformation about the online activity of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. One Facebook post claims Kushner, Trump's senior adviser, deleted all of his tweets after the New York Times published its investigation of the president's tax returns on Sept. 27. 'Shoutout to Jared Kushner who deleted all of his tweets after the tax story broke,' the post reads. 'Genius. No way anyone has copies of that s---.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is wrong. PolitiFact searched archived versions of Kushner's Twitter profile to determine that he hasn't had tweets on his account in many years. There were no tweets to delete. According to Kushner's verified Twitter profile, he joined the site in April 2009 and he currently has '0 Tweets.' This is consistent with archived versions of Kushner's Twitter profile from years past. One of the earliest archived versions of Kushner's profile from April 5, 2011, shows that he had tweeted three times, mostly about his decision to join Twitter. In March 2014, those were still the only tweets on Kushner's profile. By Oct. 18, 2016, those tweets were deleted.'@jaredkushner hasn't tweeted yet,' the archived Twitter profile reads. Another version of the profile archived on the website archive.today confirms Kushner had no tweets on his account as of Jan. 10, 2017, more than a week before Trump took office. Similarly, as of Aug. 17, 2020 - a little more than a month before the New York Times investigation brought Trump's tax history back into the spotlight on Sept. 27 - Kushner still had no tweets on his account. '@jaredkushner hasn't Tweeted,' the archived Twitter profile reads. 'When they do, their Tweets will show up here.' We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | [
"100326-proof-10-04b5767c16b382befcc51459af780dab.jpg"
]
|
'Now (Biden) is saying that people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine. | Contradiction | During a Feb. 2 interview on Fox News, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., claimed President Joe Biden was allowing unauthorized immigrants to move ahead of American citizens to get their covid-19 vaccines. 'Now (Biden) is saying that people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine,' said Scalise, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House. Lauren Fine, a spokesperson for Scalise, said the representative was referring to a Feb. 1 statement from the Department of Homeland Security. It said the agency 'encourages all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to receive the COVID-19 vaccine once eligible under local distribution guidelines.' Since supply is limited, wrote Fine in an emailed statement, 'for every vaccine an illegal immigrant gets, that's one an American citizen waiting in line is not getting. If you're an American citizen that's currently in a group that can't get the vaccine yet, you're now behind in the line to an illegal immigrant in a group that can get one.' Considering the DHS statement, other press statements and executive plans, the Biden administration has certainly been vocal about its position that all immigrants should be able to get this shot. But, we wondered, does allowing this population access to the vaccine mean they are being invited to step in front of American citizens in the queue? We asked the experts. The gist of Biden's policies The Biden administration released a national COVID-19 strategy plan during the president's first week in office. The administration, according to the document, is 'committed to ensuring that safe, effective, cost-free vaccines are available to the entire U.S. public - regardless of their immigration status.' The plan directs federal agencies to take action to ensure everyone living in the U.S. can access the vaccine free of charge and without cost sharing. During a Jan. 28 press briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration feels 'that ensuring that all people in the United States - undocumented immigrants, as well, of course - receive access to a vaccine, because that, one, is morally right, but also ensures that people in the country are also safe.' The DHS statement also specified that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency wouldn't conduct enforcement operations at or near vaccination sites or clinics. The Biden administration didn't respond to a request to clarify its position on unauthorized immigrants' access to vaccines in relation to Scalise's claim. But, based on publicly available information, it is clear the administration wants immigrants to have access to the vaccine. However, no statement or provision in the administration's policies indicates they should 'jump' ahead of other Americans. Public health experts across the board criticized Scalise for his statement, in effect saying he was missing the point. 'The line is not drawn by your immigration or legal status,' said Dr. Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser for Physicians for Human Rights, a nonprofit that investigates the health consequences of human rights violations. 'It's drawn by your vulnerability, your potential for exposure and your risk.' Jeffrey Levi, a professor of health policy and management at George Washington University, said Scalise's claim misrepresents what Biden is trying to do. 'They are simply saying that if an immigrant falls within a category that is currently prioritized (e.g., a health care worker or someone over a certain age), they should not be excluded from getting the vaccine,' Levi wrote in an email. 'It does not put an immigrant ahead of a prioritized category.' Samantha Artiga, director of racial equity and health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy organization, had a similar take. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of KFF). 'The policies clarify that all people in the U.S. are eligible for vaccinations regardless of their immigration status and encourage immigrants to get vaccinated when they become eligible based on their local guidelines,' she wrote in an email. 'They do not prioritize immigrants.' Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow in health policy with the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, said the Biden plan is just following standard public health policy and epidemiological principles. 'Trying to place an emphasis on immigration status might be a good way to press people's buttons to get a sound bite on television,' said Singer. 'But immigration status is really irrelevant when we're prioritizing people. It doesn't matter where you come from. If you're here in the U.S., you should get vaccinated.' Part of the essential workforce The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended in December that states should first prioritize vaccinating health care workers and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities. The next priority group, according to ACIP, should be people ages 75 and older and other front-line essential workers who are not in health care. The Biden administration also recently recommended the age category be lowered to include all seniors, age 65 and older. However, states are free to create their own vaccine distribution plans and decide what groups will get vaccinated first. Unauthorized immigrants make up significant percentages of the workforces deemed 'essential' by ACIP. For example, KFF reports that noncitizens (a broad group that could include immigrants in the country lawfully) constitute 22% of all food production workers, 8% of workers in long-term care facilities and 5% of health care workers who have direct patient contact. The Migration Policy Institute estimated in a February report the number of unauthorized immigrants who qualify as essential workers ranges from 1.1 million to 5.6 million, depending on how essential workers are defined. The institute also reported about 49% of the estimated 2.4 million farmworkers in the United States were unauthorized immigrants as of 2016. And it's important those groups get vaccinated regardless of immigration status, not just as a good public health practice, but also from an ethical and humane perspective, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'It has obviously been a long-standing public health principle that infection anywhere affects the health of everyone,' said Benjamin. 'It is also of the highest ethical standards to make sure everybody gets vaccinated and gets treated for infectious disease.' Benjamin added that many unauthorized immigrants who work in essential roles are the foundation keeping society functioning during the pandemic, such as restaurant workers and caretakers. 'They're at higher risk because they're out and about and they can't shelter at home,' said Benjamin. 'At the end of the day, if we did not vaccinate them and they could not go to work, our economy would totally collapse.' Plus, 70% to 90% of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity in the U.S. 'As long as this doesn't happen, it doesn't matter who is vaccinated,' said Mishori. 'To reach herd immunity in the U.S., everyone regardless of their immigration status, needs to get vaccinated.' 'Viruses don't know the legal status of their victims,' Mishori added. One other note is that the population in question is small compared with the total U.S. population. About 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the U.S., making up about 3% of the total U.S. population of about 330 million. | Our ruling Scalise said it is Biden's policy that 'people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine.' The Biden administration has made it clear that unauthorized immigrants are eligible to receive the vaccine if they are part of a priority group, such as health care workers or seniors. That does mean some unauthorized immigrants who meet specific vaccination criteria for job duties or age could receive a shot before American citizens who do not meet those requirements. This is in keeping with long-standing public health practices. But Scalise was misrepresenting Biden's policy when he suggested that unauthorized immigrants are being prioritized over American citizens or can jump the vaccination line. Eligibility for the vaccine is based on job and age categories - period. Under the Biden approach, immigration status is not a qualifying or disqualifying factor. His statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100333-proof-15-7be59ff7337b7514d51099a6251f0e6a.jpg"
]
|
'Now (Biden) is saying that people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine. | Contradiction | During a Feb. 2 interview on Fox News, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., claimed President Joe Biden was allowing unauthorized immigrants to move ahead of American citizens to get their covid-19 vaccines. 'Now (Biden) is saying that people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine,' said Scalise, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House. Lauren Fine, a spokesperson for Scalise, said the representative was referring to a Feb. 1 statement from the Department of Homeland Security. It said the agency 'encourages all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to receive the COVID-19 vaccine once eligible under local distribution guidelines.' Since supply is limited, wrote Fine in an emailed statement, 'for every vaccine an illegal immigrant gets, that's one an American citizen waiting in line is not getting. If you're an American citizen that's currently in a group that can't get the vaccine yet, you're now behind in the line to an illegal immigrant in a group that can get one.' Considering the DHS statement, other press statements and executive plans, the Biden administration has certainly been vocal about its position that all immigrants should be able to get this shot. But, we wondered, does allowing this population access to the vaccine mean they are being invited to step in front of American citizens in the queue? We asked the experts. The gist of Biden's policies The Biden administration released a national COVID-19 strategy plan during the president's first week in office. The administration, according to the document, is 'committed to ensuring that safe, effective, cost-free vaccines are available to the entire U.S. public - regardless of their immigration status.' The plan directs federal agencies to take action to ensure everyone living in the U.S. can access the vaccine free of charge and without cost sharing. During a Jan. 28 press briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration feels 'that ensuring that all people in the United States - undocumented immigrants, as well, of course - receive access to a vaccine, because that, one, is morally right, but also ensures that people in the country are also safe.' The DHS statement also specified that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency wouldn't conduct enforcement operations at or near vaccination sites or clinics. The Biden administration didn't respond to a request to clarify its position on unauthorized immigrants' access to vaccines in relation to Scalise's claim. But, based on publicly available information, it is clear the administration wants immigrants to have access to the vaccine. However, no statement or provision in the administration's policies indicates they should 'jump' ahead of other Americans. Public health experts across the board criticized Scalise for his statement, in effect saying he was missing the point. 'The line is not drawn by your immigration or legal status,' said Dr. Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser for Physicians for Human Rights, a nonprofit that investigates the health consequences of human rights violations. 'It's drawn by your vulnerability, your potential for exposure and your risk.' Jeffrey Levi, a professor of health policy and management at George Washington University, said Scalise's claim misrepresents what Biden is trying to do. 'They are simply saying that if an immigrant falls within a category that is currently prioritized (e.g., a health care worker or someone over a certain age), they should not be excluded from getting the vaccine,' Levi wrote in an email. 'It does not put an immigrant ahead of a prioritized category.' Samantha Artiga, director of racial equity and health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy organization, had a similar take. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of KFF). 'The policies clarify that all people in the U.S. are eligible for vaccinations regardless of their immigration status and encourage immigrants to get vaccinated when they become eligible based on their local guidelines,' she wrote in an email. 'They do not prioritize immigrants.' Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow in health policy with the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, said the Biden plan is just following standard public health policy and epidemiological principles. 'Trying to place an emphasis on immigration status might be a good way to press people's buttons to get a sound bite on television,' said Singer. 'But immigration status is really irrelevant when we're prioritizing people. It doesn't matter where you come from. If you're here in the U.S., you should get vaccinated.' Part of the essential workforce The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended in December that states should first prioritize vaccinating health care workers and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities. The next priority group, according to ACIP, should be people ages 75 and older and other front-line essential workers who are not in health care. The Biden administration also recently recommended the age category be lowered to include all seniors, age 65 and older. However, states are free to create their own vaccine distribution plans and decide what groups will get vaccinated first. Unauthorized immigrants make up significant percentages of the workforces deemed 'essential' by ACIP. For example, KFF reports that noncitizens (a broad group that could include immigrants in the country lawfully) constitute 22% of all food production workers, 8% of workers in long-term care facilities and 5% of health care workers who have direct patient contact. The Migration Policy Institute estimated in a February report the number of unauthorized immigrants who qualify as essential workers ranges from 1.1 million to 5.6 million, depending on how essential workers are defined. The institute also reported about 49% of the estimated 2.4 million farmworkers in the United States were unauthorized immigrants as of 2016. And it's important those groups get vaccinated regardless of immigration status, not just as a good public health practice, but also from an ethical and humane perspective, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'It has obviously been a long-standing public health principle that infection anywhere affects the health of everyone,' said Benjamin. 'It is also of the highest ethical standards to make sure everybody gets vaccinated and gets treated for infectious disease.' Benjamin added that many unauthorized immigrants who work in essential roles are the foundation keeping society functioning during the pandemic, such as restaurant workers and caretakers. 'They're at higher risk because they're out and about and they can't shelter at home,' said Benjamin. 'At the end of the day, if we did not vaccinate them and they could not go to work, our economy would totally collapse.' Plus, 70% to 90% of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity in the U.S. 'As long as this doesn't happen, it doesn't matter who is vaccinated,' said Mishori. 'To reach herd immunity in the U.S., everyone regardless of their immigration status, needs to get vaccinated.' 'Viruses don't know the legal status of their victims,' Mishori added. One other note is that the population in question is small compared with the total U.S. population. About 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the U.S., making up about 3% of the total U.S. population of about 330 million. | Our ruling Scalise said it is Biden's policy that 'people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine.' The Biden administration has made it clear that unauthorized immigrants are eligible to receive the vaccine if they are part of a priority group, such as health care workers or seniors. That does mean some unauthorized immigrants who meet specific vaccination criteria for job duties or age could receive a shot before American citizens who do not meet those requirements. This is in keeping with long-standing public health practices. But Scalise was misrepresenting Biden's policy when he suggested that unauthorized immigrants are being prioritized over American citizens or can jump the vaccination line. Eligibility for the vaccine is based on job and age categories - period. Under the Biden approach, immigration status is not a qualifying or disqualifying factor. His statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100333-proof-15-7be59ff7337b7514d51099a6251f0e6a.jpg"
]
|
'Now (Biden) is saying that people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine. | Contradiction | During a Feb. 2 interview on Fox News, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., claimed President Joe Biden was allowing unauthorized immigrants to move ahead of American citizens to get their covid-19 vaccines. 'Now (Biden) is saying that people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine,' said Scalise, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House. Lauren Fine, a spokesperson for Scalise, said the representative was referring to a Feb. 1 statement from the Department of Homeland Security. It said the agency 'encourages all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to receive the COVID-19 vaccine once eligible under local distribution guidelines.' Since supply is limited, wrote Fine in an emailed statement, 'for every vaccine an illegal immigrant gets, that's one an American citizen waiting in line is not getting. If you're an American citizen that's currently in a group that can't get the vaccine yet, you're now behind in the line to an illegal immigrant in a group that can get one.' Considering the DHS statement, other press statements and executive plans, the Biden administration has certainly been vocal about its position that all immigrants should be able to get this shot. But, we wondered, does allowing this population access to the vaccine mean they are being invited to step in front of American citizens in the queue? We asked the experts. The gist of Biden's policies The Biden administration released a national COVID-19 strategy plan during the president's first week in office. The administration, according to the document, is 'committed to ensuring that safe, effective, cost-free vaccines are available to the entire U.S. public - regardless of their immigration status.' The plan directs federal agencies to take action to ensure everyone living in the U.S. can access the vaccine free of charge and without cost sharing. During a Jan. 28 press briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration feels 'that ensuring that all people in the United States - undocumented immigrants, as well, of course - receive access to a vaccine, because that, one, is morally right, but also ensures that people in the country are also safe.' The DHS statement also specified that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency wouldn't conduct enforcement operations at or near vaccination sites or clinics. The Biden administration didn't respond to a request to clarify its position on unauthorized immigrants' access to vaccines in relation to Scalise's claim. But, based on publicly available information, it is clear the administration wants immigrants to have access to the vaccine. However, no statement or provision in the administration's policies indicates they should 'jump' ahead of other Americans. Public health experts across the board criticized Scalise for his statement, in effect saying he was missing the point. 'The line is not drawn by your immigration or legal status,' said Dr. Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser for Physicians for Human Rights, a nonprofit that investigates the health consequences of human rights violations. 'It's drawn by your vulnerability, your potential for exposure and your risk.' Jeffrey Levi, a professor of health policy and management at George Washington University, said Scalise's claim misrepresents what Biden is trying to do. 'They are simply saying that if an immigrant falls within a category that is currently prioritized (e.g., a health care worker or someone over a certain age), they should not be excluded from getting the vaccine,' Levi wrote in an email. 'It does not put an immigrant ahead of a prioritized category.' Samantha Artiga, director of racial equity and health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy organization, had a similar take. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of KFF). 'The policies clarify that all people in the U.S. are eligible for vaccinations regardless of their immigration status and encourage immigrants to get vaccinated when they become eligible based on their local guidelines,' she wrote in an email. 'They do not prioritize immigrants.' Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow in health policy with the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, said the Biden plan is just following standard public health policy and epidemiological principles. 'Trying to place an emphasis on immigration status might be a good way to press people's buttons to get a sound bite on television,' said Singer. 'But immigration status is really irrelevant when we're prioritizing people. It doesn't matter where you come from. If you're here in the U.S., you should get vaccinated.' Part of the essential workforce The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended in December that states should first prioritize vaccinating health care workers and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities. The next priority group, according to ACIP, should be people ages 75 and older and other front-line essential workers who are not in health care. The Biden administration also recently recommended the age category be lowered to include all seniors, age 65 and older. However, states are free to create their own vaccine distribution plans and decide what groups will get vaccinated first. Unauthorized immigrants make up significant percentages of the workforces deemed 'essential' by ACIP. For example, KFF reports that noncitizens (a broad group that could include immigrants in the country lawfully) constitute 22% of all food production workers, 8% of workers in long-term care facilities and 5% of health care workers who have direct patient contact. The Migration Policy Institute estimated in a February report the number of unauthorized immigrants who qualify as essential workers ranges from 1.1 million to 5.6 million, depending on how essential workers are defined. The institute also reported about 49% of the estimated 2.4 million farmworkers in the United States were unauthorized immigrants as of 2016. And it's important those groups get vaccinated regardless of immigration status, not just as a good public health practice, but also from an ethical and humane perspective, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'It has obviously been a long-standing public health principle that infection anywhere affects the health of everyone,' said Benjamin. 'It is also of the highest ethical standards to make sure everybody gets vaccinated and gets treated for infectious disease.' Benjamin added that many unauthorized immigrants who work in essential roles are the foundation keeping society functioning during the pandemic, such as restaurant workers and caretakers. 'They're at higher risk because they're out and about and they can't shelter at home,' said Benjamin. 'At the end of the day, if we did not vaccinate them and they could not go to work, our economy would totally collapse.' Plus, 70% to 90% of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity in the U.S. 'As long as this doesn't happen, it doesn't matter who is vaccinated,' said Mishori. 'To reach herd immunity in the U.S., everyone regardless of their immigration status, needs to get vaccinated.' 'Viruses don't know the legal status of their victims,' Mishori added. One other note is that the population in question is small compared with the total U.S. population. About 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the U.S., making up about 3% of the total U.S. population of about 330 million. | Our ruling Scalise said it is Biden's policy that 'people who came here illegally can jump ahead of other Americans who have been waiting to get the vaccine.' The Biden administration has made it clear that unauthorized immigrants are eligible to receive the vaccine if they are part of a priority group, such as health care workers or seniors. That does mean some unauthorized immigrants who meet specific vaccination criteria for job duties or age could receive a shot before American citizens who do not meet those requirements. This is in keeping with long-standing public health practices. But Scalise was misrepresenting Biden's policy when he suggested that unauthorized immigrants are being prioritized over American citizens or can jump the vaccination line. Eligibility for the vaccine is based on job and age categories - period. Under the Biden approach, immigration status is not a qualifying or disqualifying factor. His statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100333-proof-15-7be59ff7337b7514d51099a6251f0e6a.jpg"
]
|
'Amy Coney Barrett has said that a woman should not be able to own property, buy or sell without the permission of her husband or a male relative. | Contradiction | Widely shared social media posts attacking Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, have fallen short on our Truth-O-Meter. We rated False a claim that, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, Barrett has said her 'end goal is to end the separation of church and state and build a 'Kingdom of God' in the United States.' Also False was a claim that Barrett said that 'gays have a right to be discriminated against because they are against God's wishes' and that 'white people are God's chosen ones.' Now comes this attack, posted on Facebook: 'Amy Coney Barrett has said that a woman should not be able to own property, buy or sell without the permission of her husband or a male relative.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We contacted nine legal experts and organizations familiar with Barrett's record, including two organizations that oppose her nomination and have researched her background. None said they were aware of any evidence to back the post. 'We have not seen that statement attributed directly to Barrett,' said a spokeswoman for the National Women's Law Center, which opposes Barrett's nomination and has suggested that adding Barrett to a conservative-leaning court could increase the risk of discrimination against women in property rights and other areas. Said a spokesman for the Alliance for Justice, a progressive group that opposes Barrett's nomination: 'Our researchers have never seen any quote to that effect.' Added Ilya Shapiro, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute: 'I've never heard that, and it's a ridiculous assertion.' Barrett, a conservative judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago who has described herself as a devout Catholic, was chosen by Trump for the seat that opened when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18. Several experts said the claim likely emanates from perceptions about the Christian group People of Praise. Barrett has close ties to the group, which holds that men are divinely ordained as the 'head' of the family and faith, the Associated Press reported. | Our ruling The Facebook claim said, 'Amy Coney Barrett has said that a woman should not be able to own property, buy or sell without the permission of her husband or a male relative.' Finding no evidence to back the statement, we rate it False. | [
"100334-proof-24-ed0ebfcb2c0ffb8127da1735b3f3a2fb.jpg"
]
|
Says Facebook recently logged users out to track their 'off Facebook activity' involving bank accounts, emails and other apps. | Contradiction | Scores of Facebook users found themselves unexpectedly logged out of the social media app recently, causing confusion, with people frantically trying to remember their long-forgotten passwords. But while Facebook says the glitch was due to a system change, posts on well, Facebook, pointed to a more insidious reason: 'Who got logged off Facebook last night?' a post shared Jan. 23 says. 'Want to know why??? Facebook updated last night with a new feature. They can now track 'OFF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY,' bank accounts, email, apps.... To turn it off go into your Facebook Settings, scroll down to OFF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY, then click CLEAR HISTORY then click MORE OPTIONS then MANAGE FUTURE ACTIVITY and turn off FUTURE ACTIVITY.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It isn't accurate. Here's what happened. On Jan. 22, Facebook said it was looking into reports of people being logged out of their accounts, receiving a 'session expired' notification before being prompted to log back in. The company confirmed the following morning that engineers had fixed the issue. 'On January 22, a configuration change caused some people to be logged out of their Facebook accounts. We investigated the issue and fixed it for everyone on January 23. We're sorry for the inconvenience,' a Facebook company spokesperson told PolitiFact in an email. Technology news website Engadget found that iPhone owners were most affected by the glitch and that people using two-factor authentication were having the most trouble, as the SMS codes needed to log back in were taking a long time to reach users. Facebook confirmed that its 'Off-Facebook Activity' tracker has nothing to do with the logout issues, and is not part of a new update. It's been available on the website for exactly one year. And it does not give Facebook the ability to track your bank account or email activity, as the post claims. It's a tool offered to users, not an advertising tool itself. The tracker enables users to have more insight into how the company traces them online. Businesses send Facebook information about a user's activity on their websites, and Facebook uses that information to show relevant ads in their newsfeed. The Off-Facebook Activity tool now allows users to see a summary of that data and clear it from their accounts if they choose to, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a January 2020 blog post. The tracker shows 180 days' worth of data collected by Facebook. Besides clearing that history, users can also tell Facebook to stop adding data from their accounts by clicking 'Manage Future Activity' and then toggling off the button next to 'Future Off-Facebook Activity,' according to the Washington Post. Quick warning: Turning off your off-Facebook activity will mean losing access to apps and websites that you've used Facebook to login to in the past. Changing these settings doesn't stop Facebook from gathering data from other businesses, it simply 'disconnects' that data from your profile, which mostly means the company won't use it to target you with ads. | Our ruling Some Facebook users who were recently logged out of their accounts claim that the company did it purposely to install an off-Facebook tracker that accesses their bank accounts, emails and more. This is wrong. The forced logouts were due to a system change glitch and has nothing to do with the company's Off-Facebook tracker. The tool allows users to see how the company traces their activity on the internet and has been on the social media website since January 2020. We rate this False. | []
|
Says Facebook recently logged users out to track their 'off Facebook activity' involving bank accounts, emails and other apps. | Contradiction | Scores of Facebook users found themselves unexpectedly logged out of the social media app recently, causing confusion, with people frantically trying to remember their long-forgotten passwords. But while Facebook says the glitch was due to a system change, posts on well, Facebook, pointed to a more insidious reason: 'Who got logged off Facebook last night?' a post shared Jan. 23 says. 'Want to know why??? Facebook updated last night with a new feature. They can now track 'OFF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY,' bank accounts, email, apps.... To turn it off go into your Facebook Settings, scroll down to OFF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY, then click CLEAR HISTORY then click MORE OPTIONS then MANAGE FUTURE ACTIVITY and turn off FUTURE ACTIVITY.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It isn't accurate. Here's what happened. On Jan. 22, Facebook said it was looking into reports of people being logged out of their accounts, receiving a 'session expired' notification before being prompted to log back in. The company confirmed the following morning that engineers had fixed the issue. 'On January 22, a configuration change caused some people to be logged out of their Facebook accounts. We investigated the issue and fixed it for everyone on January 23. We're sorry for the inconvenience,' a Facebook company spokesperson told PolitiFact in an email. Technology news website Engadget found that iPhone owners were most affected by the glitch and that people using two-factor authentication were having the most trouble, as the SMS codes needed to log back in were taking a long time to reach users. Facebook confirmed that its 'Off-Facebook Activity' tracker has nothing to do with the logout issues, and is not part of a new update. It's been available on the website for exactly one year. And it does not give Facebook the ability to track your bank account or email activity, as the post claims. It's a tool offered to users, not an advertising tool itself. The tracker enables users to have more insight into how the company traces them online. Businesses send Facebook information about a user's activity on their websites, and Facebook uses that information to show relevant ads in their newsfeed. The Off-Facebook Activity tool now allows users to see a summary of that data and clear it from their accounts if they choose to, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a January 2020 blog post. The tracker shows 180 days' worth of data collected by Facebook. Besides clearing that history, users can also tell Facebook to stop adding data from their accounts by clicking 'Manage Future Activity' and then toggling off the button next to 'Future Off-Facebook Activity,' according to the Washington Post. Quick warning: Turning off your off-Facebook activity will mean losing access to apps and websites that you've used Facebook to login to in the past. Changing these settings doesn't stop Facebook from gathering data from other businesses, it simply 'disconnects' that data from your profile, which mostly means the company won't use it to target you with ads. | Our ruling Some Facebook users who were recently logged out of their accounts claim that the company did it purposely to install an off-Facebook tracker that accesses their bank accounts, emails and more. This is wrong. The forced logouts were due to a system change glitch and has nothing to do with the company's Off-Facebook tracker. The tool allows users to see how the company traces their activity on the internet and has been on the social media website since January 2020. We rate this False. | []
|
Says Facebook recently logged users out to track their 'off Facebook activity' involving bank accounts, emails and other apps. | Contradiction | Scores of Facebook users found themselves unexpectedly logged out of the social media app recently, causing confusion, with people frantically trying to remember their long-forgotten passwords. But while Facebook says the glitch was due to a system change, posts on well, Facebook, pointed to a more insidious reason: 'Who got logged off Facebook last night?' a post shared Jan. 23 says. 'Want to know why??? Facebook updated last night with a new feature. They can now track 'OFF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY,' bank accounts, email, apps.... To turn it off go into your Facebook Settings, scroll down to OFF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY, then click CLEAR HISTORY then click MORE OPTIONS then MANAGE FUTURE ACTIVITY and turn off FUTURE ACTIVITY.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It isn't accurate. Here's what happened. On Jan. 22, Facebook said it was looking into reports of people being logged out of their accounts, receiving a 'session expired' notification before being prompted to log back in. The company confirmed the following morning that engineers had fixed the issue. 'On January 22, a configuration change caused some people to be logged out of their Facebook accounts. We investigated the issue and fixed it for everyone on January 23. We're sorry for the inconvenience,' a Facebook company spokesperson told PolitiFact in an email. Technology news website Engadget found that iPhone owners were most affected by the glitch and that people using two-factor authentication were having the most trouble, as the SMS codes needed to log back in were taking a long time to reach users. Facebook confirmed that its 'Off-Facebook Activity' tracker has nothing to do with the logout issues, and is not part of a new update. It's been available on the website for exactly one year. And it does not give Facebook the ability to track your bank account or email activity, as the post claims. It's a tool offered to users, not an advertising tool itself. The tracker enables users to have more insight into how the company traces them online. Businesses send Facebook information about a user's activity on their websites, and Facebook uses that information to show relevant ads in their newsfeed. The Off-Facebook Activity tool now allows users to see a summary of that data and clear it from their accounts if they choose to, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a January 2020 blog post. The tracker shows 180 days' worth of data collected by Facebook. Besides clearing that history, users can also tell Facebook to stop adding data from their accounts by clicking 'Manage Future Activity' and then toggling off the button next to 'Future Off-Facebook Activity,' according to the Washington Post. Quick warning: Turning off your off-Facebook activity will mean losing access to apps and websites that you've used Facebook to login to in the past. Changing these settings doesn't stop Facebook from gathering data from other businesses, it simply 'disconnects' that data from your profile, which mostly means the company won't use it to target you with ads. | Our ruling Some Facebook users who were recently logged out of their accounts claim that the company did it purposely to install an off-Facebook tracker that accesses their bank accounts, emails and more. This is wrong. The forced logouts were due to a system change glitch and has nothing to do with the company's Off-Facebook tracker. The tool allows users to see how the company traces their activity on the internet and has been on the social media website since January 2020. We rate this False. | []
|
Says Chadwick Boseman was poisoned and his death is being investigated as a homicide. | Contradiction | On Aug. 28, a statement from the family of Chadwick Boseman was tweeted from the actor's verified Twitter account announcing that he had died. 'Chadwick was diagnosed with stage III colon cancer in 2016, and battled with it these last 4 years as it progressed to stage IV,' the message said. 'A true fighter, Chadwick persevered through it all, and brought you many of the films you have come to love so much. From Marshall to Da 5 Bloods, August Wilson's Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and several more, all were filmed during and between countless surgeries and chemotherapy. It was the honor of his career to bring King T'Challa to life in Black Panther. He died at home, with his wife and family by his side.' In the days since, Facebook posts like this one have spread misinformation about Boseman's death, claiming that he was poisoned. An image of the actor above a headline on TorontoToday.net says: 'AUTOPSY: Chadwick Boseman was POISONED, homicide investigation begins.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) But Toronto Today is not a credible news source. We found no evidence to suggest an autopsy had occurred, much less that such an autopsy found evidence of poisoning. Colon cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Boseman had not spoken publicly about his diagnosis, and the news of his death startled fans, who grieved his passing on social media. But we found nothing to support the claims that others are now sharing on platforms like Facebook. Rather, they seem to follow the same pattern of other death hoaxes that spread after a high-profile person dies. The Toronto Today story says that 'police are now considering this a homicide, and will be holding a press conference in the next 48 hours,' but no such news event has happened. If Boseman was actually killed, it would draw wide media coverage. Instead, this post has drawn articles fact-checking it. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
With the goal to preserve 30% of the earth's land and water by 2030, '300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples. | Contradiction | As part of his plan to put the brakes on climate change, President Joe Biden set a goal of conserving 30% of America's land and waters by 2030. For land in particular, that's a heavy lift - only about 12% of the nation's land is now under some form of protection. Biden's target is part of a larger international ambition to protect a third of the world's land and waters by 2030. On a global scale, the protected regions would do a lot of work to pull carbon from the air and store it in the soil, coral reefs, sea grasses and other carbon sinks. The effort goes under name 30 by 30, or 30x30. But some advocates for indigenous peoples see a threat in the international push to protect land. One of those groups, Survival International, calls the global 30x30 plan 'the biggest land grab in history.' Survival International sees the 30x30 initiative as driving people off the land their communities may have occupied for hundreds of years, without giving them a fair voice in the process. 'Three hundred million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples,' the group said in a message posted to its website on Earth Day, April 22. The 300 million figure, almost as much as the population of the U.S., is a very large number. We dug in to see where that figure comes from, and whether it represents a reasonable estimate of the likely harm due to the 30x30 plan. Backers of the 30x30 initiative question Survival International's reasoning. They say that the plan is designed to strengthen the rights of indigenous people to stay on their land and maintain a traditional way of life - that conservation doesn't necessarily mean eviction. Independent experts, meanwhile, see the 300 million figure as a reasonable estimate of how many people live in or near areas that are prime for conservation. But they don't agree that the number accurately reflects how many could lose their land in the context of 30x30. The 30x30 initiative and indigenous people A group of 51 countries, led by Costa Rica, France and the United Kingdom, are pressing to see the 30x30 goal adopted at a major international gathering on biodiversity taking place in China in October. The group includes nations from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Americas. Protecting indigenous peoples ranks at the top of their priorities. 'Indigenous peoples and local communities are protectors of the most biodiverse sites in the world,' the group wrote when they launched Jan. 11, 2021. 'To effectively and equitably meet this increased target, they should be engaged as partners in the design and management of these conserved areas.' Brian O'Donnell, director of Colorado-based Campaign for Nature, backs the 30x30 effort. He objects to the characterization by Survival International. 'They have redefined our policies and our intent,' O'Donnell said. 'Our aim is to safeguard and secure more rights for indigenous people. Getting land tenure rights for indigenous people is the pathway to reach 30x30.' O'Donnell said there is no dispute that conservation efforts have displaced people and led to human rights abuses in the past. He also said the current draft of the biodiversity framework slated for a vote in October should change. 'It's a work in progress,' he said. 'There are some safeguards in there now for indigenous people, but they need to be stronger.' The roots of the 300 million figure Staff at Survival International said they derived their estimate of 300 million from a 2019 study that looked at a more ambitious goal of protecting half of the world's land and waters from development. A team led by a University of Cambridge researcher estimated that at that 50% level, at least 1 billion people live in areas that would fall under some form of protection. Survival International staff said that in a follow-up email to a partner group - the Rainforest Foundation UK - the Cambridge researcher said preservation of 30% of land and water would affect about 297 million people. Survival International added its own take on the study. Where the researchers warned of potential problems with that level of protection, Survival International expressed it more definitively: that the 30x30 plan 'will increase human suffering and the destruction of nature. It is a deadly distraction from what is urgently needed to secure human diversity and all biodiversity: the recognition of indigenous peoples' rights to their land.' One clarification: Survival International said in its article that 'most' of the 300 million people potentially affected would be indigenous or tribal people. But when pressed, the group's staff said it's not clear that it would be a majority. They told us they should have said 'many.' Conservation efforts can displace indigenous people There are countless examples in history of indigenous people being forced off their land in the name of conservation. In Botswana, the government banned the San people of the Kalahari desert from their traditional lands to boost tourism and mining. In Thailand, two national park officials were charged with the murder of an indigenous human rights defender in 2019. The government later sought to have the forest that the activist had fought over designated as a UNESCO world heritage site. In the U.S., Montana's Glacier National Park was carved out of land used by the Blackfeet Nation. Initially, tribe members had negotiated to hold on to hunting and fishing rights. But when the park was created in 1910, they lost everything. The abuses continue today, and there's no guarantee that they won't happen under the 30x30 initiative. But protecting land doesn't have to entail displacing people. It is a risk, not a certainty. And the extent of that risk depends on how the land is protected. Globally, policies in the category of conservation vary, from cutting off all human activity, to allowing traditional practices, to allowing other sustainable uses. Each nation can craft its own rules for each situation. In the U.S., the interplay of legislation, an open public process and executive decisions have produced places where many uses are allowed, and others where there are no roads and no permanent residences. Researcher Stephen Garnett at Charles Darwin University in Australia cautioned that Survival International's 300 million estimate, when applied to 30x30, is shaky for two reasons. First, we can't know for sure which lands would be conserved under the plan. Second, the 30x30 strategy doesn't hinge on setting land aside in a way that would ban farming or other land uses. Garnett says Australia has approached this by designating 'Indigenous Protected Areas' to make sure aboriginal residents can continue to live on and use the land as they always have. They make up nearly half of Australia's conserved areas, he said. Not all protected areas follow the same script A quick look at Survival International's own website shows the pitfalls of treating all types of conservation projects as a threat to indigenous people. One news brief focuses on a tribe in India protesting their eviction from traditional honey-gathering sites inside the Nagarhole National Park. With backing from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the land is now a refuge for tigers, and a source of tourism dollars. But another bulletin tells the story of an indigenous group in Peru that wants an international human rights commission to enforce protections for land that was supposed to be kept as a tribal reserve. The Peruvian government, the post said, had reactivated logging, oil and gas concessions in these areas. Both are examples of conservation efforts. But in the first case, conservation leads to the eviction of people. In the second, conservation is a tool to protect traditional uses of the land. Survival International campaign director Fiore Longo acknowledged in an email to PolitiFact that the terms can get confusing, and 'we have to see what a protected area means and which model is applied where.' But in the dire prediction on its website that 30x30 would put 300 million people at risk, Survival International doesn't spell out those nuances. 'The main assumption to yield a number like that is that anyone in a future protected area would get kicked out,' said University of Maryland ecology professor Erle Ellis. 'This is not the intention of anyone working on 30x30.' | Our ruling Survival International said under the 30x30 plan, '300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples.' The 300 million figure is derived from a study on the impact of land conservation efforts, but not the 30x30 initiative specifically. While conservation efforts have led to forced evictions in the past, that's not always the case, and the assumption that 30x30 would do so runs counter to the stated priorities of the nations pressing for the plan. Survival International said it should have said 'many' not 'most' of the 300 million would be indigenous people. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"100370-proof-45-551ffdde8d068771a26f02bb66de7693.jpg"
]
|
With the goal to preserve 30% of the earth's land and water by 2030, '300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples. | Contradiction | As part of his plan to put the brakes on climate change, President Joe Biden set a goal of conserving 30% of America's land and waters by 2030. For land in particular, that's a heavy lift - only about 12% of the nation's land is now under some form of protection. Biden's target is part of a larger international ambition to protect a third of the world's land and waters by 2030. On a global scale, the protected regions would do a lot of work to pull carbon from the air and store it in the soil, coral reefs, sea grasses and other carbon sinks. The effort goes under name 30 by 30, or 30x30. But some advocates for indigenous peoples see a threat in the international push to protect land. One of those groups, Survival International, calls the global 30x30 plan 'the biggest land grab in history.' Survival International sees the 30x30 initiative as driving people off the land their communities may have occupied for hundreds of years, without giving them a fair voice in the process. 'Three hundred million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples,' the group said in a message posted to its website on Earth Day, April 22. The 300 million figure, almost as much as the population of the U.S., is a very large number. We dug in to see where that figure comes from, and whether it represents a reasonable estimate of the likely harm due to the 30x30 plan. Backers of the 30x30 initiative question Survival International's reasoning. They say that the plan is designed to strengthen the rights of indigenous people to stay on their land and maintain a traditional way of life - that conservation doesn't necessarily mean eviction. Independent experts, meanwhile, see the 300 million figure as a reasonable estimate of how many people live in or near areas that are prime for conservation. But they don't agree that the number accurately reflects how many could lose their land in the context of 30x30. The 30x30 initiative and indigenous people A group of 51 countries, led by Costa Rica, France and the United Kingdom, are pressing to see the 30x30 goal adopted at a major international gathering on biodiversity taking place in China in October. The group includes nations from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Americas. Protecting indigenous peoples ranks at the top of their priorities. 'Indigenous peoples and local communities are protectors of the most biodiverse sites in the world,' the group wrote when they launched Jan. 11, 2021. 'To effectively and equitably meet this increased target, they should be engaged as partners in the design and management of these conserved areas.' Brian O'Donnell, director of Colorado-based Campaign for Nature, backs the 30x30 effort. He objects to the characterization by Survival International. 'They have redefined our policies and our intent,' O'Donnell said. 'Our aim is to safeguard and secure more rights for indigenous people. Getting land tenure rights for indigenous people is the pathway to reach 30x30.' O'Donnell said there is no dispute that conservation efforts have displaced people and led to human rights abuses in the past. He also said the current draft of the biodiversity framework slated for a vote in October should change. 'It's a work in progress,' he said. 'There are some safeguards in there now for indigenous people, but they need to be stronger.' The roots of the 300 million figure Staff at Survival International said they derived their estimate of 300 million from a 2019 study that looked at a more ambitious goal of protecting half of the world's land and waters from development. A team led by a University of Cambridge researcher estimated that at that 50% level, at least 1 billion people live in areas that would fall under some form of protection. Survival International staff said that in a follow-up email to a partner group - the Rainforest Foundation UK - the Cambridge researcher said preservation of 30% of land and water would affect about 297 million people. Survival International added its own take on the study. Where the researchers warned of potential problems with that level of protection, Survival International expressed it more definitively: that the 30x30 plan 'will increase human suffering and the destruction of nature. It is a deadly distraction from what is urgently needed to secure human diversity and all biodiversity: the recognition of indigenous peoples' rights to their land.' One clarification: Survival International said in its article that 'most' of the 300 million people potentially affected would be indigenous or tribal people. But when pressed, the group's staff said it's not clear that it would be a majority. They told us they should have said 'many.' Conservation efforts can displace indigenous people There are countless examples in history of indigenous people being forced off their land in the name of conservation. In Botswana, the government banned the San people of the Kalahari desert from their traditional lands to boost tourism and mining. In Thailand, two national park officials were charged with the murder of an indigenous human rights defender in 2019. The government later sought to have the forest that the activist had fought over designated as a UNESCO world heritage site. In the U.S., Montana's Glacier National Park was carved out of land used by the Blackfeet Nation. Initially, tribe members had negotiated to hold on to hunting and fishing rights. But when the park was created in 1910, they lost everything. The abuses continue today, and there's no guarantee that they won't happen under the 30x30 initiative. But protecting land doesn't have to entail displacing people. It is a risk, not a certainty. And the extent of that risk depends on how the land is protected. Globally, policies in the category of conservation vary, from cutting off all human activity, to allowing traditional practices, to allowing other sustainable uses. Each nation can craft its own rules for each situation. In the U.S., the interplay of legislation, an open public process and executive decisions have produced places where many uses are allowed, and others where there are no roads and no permanent residences. Researcher Stephen Garnett at Charles Darwin University in Australia cautioned that Survival International's 300 million estimate, when applied to 30x30, is shaky for two reasons. First, we can't know for sure which lands would be conserved under the plan. Second, the 30x30 strategy doesn't hinge on setting land aside in a way that would ban farming or other land uses. Garnett says Australia has approached this by designating 'Indigenous Protected Areas' to make sure aboriginal residents can continue to live on and use the land as they always have. They make up nearly half of Australia's conserved areas, he said. Not all protected areas follow the same script A quick look at Survival International's own website shows the pitfalls of treating all types of conservation projects as a threat to indigenous people. One news brief focuses on a tribe in India protesting their eviction from traditional honey-gathering sites inside the Nagarhole National Park. With backing from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the land is now a refuge for tigers, and a source of tourism dollars. But another bulletin tells the story of an indigenous group in Peru that wants an international human rights commission to enforce protections for land that was supposed to be kept as a tribal reserve. The Peruvian government, the post said, had reactivated logging, oil and gas concessions in these areas. Both are examples of conservation efforts. But in the first case, conservation leads to the eviction of people. In the second, conservation is a tool to protect traditional uses of the land. Survival International campaign director Fiore Longo acknowledged in an email to PolitiFact that the terms can get confusing, and 'we have to see what a protected area means and which model is applied where.' But in the dire prediction on its website that 30x30 would put 300 million people at risk, Survival International doesn't spell out those nuances. 'The main assumption to yield a number like that is that anyone in a future protected area would get kicked out,' said University of Maryland ecology professor Erle Ellis. 'This is not the intention of anyone working on 30x30.' | Our ruling Survival International said under the 30x30 plan, '300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples.' The 300 million figure is derived from a study on the impact of land conservation efforts, but not the 30x30 initiative specifically. While conservation efforts have led to forced evictions in the past, that's not always the case, and the assumption that 30x30 would do so runs counter to the stated priorities of the nations pressing for the plan. Survival International said it should have said 'many' not 'most' of the 300 million would be indigenous people. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"100370-proof-45-551ffdde8d068771a26f02bb66de7693.jpg"
]
|
With the goal to preserve 30% of the earth's land and water by 2030, '300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples. | Contradiction | As part of his plan to put the brakes on climate change, President Joe Biden set a goal of conserving 30% of America's land and waters by 2030. For land in particular, that's a heavy lift - only about 12% of the nation's land is now under some form of protection. Biden's target is part of a larger international ambition to protect a third of the world's land and waters by 2030. On a global scale, the protected regions would do a lot of work to pull carbon from the air and store it in the soil, coral reefs, sea grasses and other carbon sinks. The effort goes under name 30 by 30, or 30x30. But some advocates for indigenous peoples see a threat in the international push to protect land. One of those groups, Survival International, calls the global 30x30 plan 'the biggest land grab in history.' Survival International sees the 30x30 initiative as driving people off the land their communities may have occupied for hundreds of years, without giving them a fair voice in the process. 'Three hundred million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples,' the group said in a message posted to its website on Earth Day, April 22. The 300 million figure, almost as much as the population of the U.S., is a very large number. We dug in to see where that figure comes from, and whether it represents a reasonable estimate of the likely harm due to the 30x30 plan. Backers of the 30x30 initiative question Survival International's reasoning. They say that the plan is designed to strengthen the rights of indigenous people to stay on their land and maintain a traditional way of life - that conservation doesn't necessarily mean eviction. Independent experts, meanwhile, see the 300 million figure as a reasonable estimate of how many people live in or near areas that are prime for conservation. But they don't agree that the number accurately reflects how many could lose their land in the context of 30x30. The 30x30 initiative and indigenous people A group of 51 countries, led by Costa Rica, France and the United Kingdom, are pressing to see the 30x30 goal adopted at a major international gathering on biodiversity taking place in China in October. The group includes nations from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Americas. Protecting indigenous peoples ranks at the top of their priorities. 'Indigenous peoples and local communities are protectors of the most biodiverse sites in the world,' the group wrote when they launched Jan. 11, 2021. 'To effectively and equitably meet this increased target, they should be engaged as partners in the design and management of these conserved areas.' Brian O'Donnell, director of Colorado-based Campaign for Nature, backs the 30x30 effort. He objects to the characterization by Survival International. 'They have redefined our policies and our intent,' O'Donnell said. 'Our aim is to safeguard and secure more rights for indigenous people. Getting land tenure rights for indigenous people is the pathway to reach 30x30.' O'Donnell said there is no dispute that conservation efforts have displaced people and led to human rights abuses in the past. He also said the current draft of the biodiversity framework slated for a vote in October should change. 'It's a work in progress,' he said. 'There are some safeguards in there now for indigenous people, but they need to be stronger.' The roots of the 300 million figure Staff at Survival International said they derived their estimate of 300 million from a 2019 study that looked at a more ambitious goal of protecting half of the world's land and waters from development. A team led by a University of Cambridge researcher estimated that at that 50% level, at least 1 billion people live in areas that would fall under some form of protection. Survival International staff said that in a follow-up email to a partner group - the Rainforest Foundation UK - the Cambridge researcher said preservation of 30% of land and water would affect about 297 million people. Survival International added its own take on the study. Where the researchers warned of potential problems with that level of protection, Survival International expressed it more definitively: that the 30x30 plan 'will increase human suffering and the destruction of nature. It is a deadly distraction from what is urgently needed to secure human diversity and all biodiversity: the recognition of indigenous peoples' rights to their land.' One clarification: Survival International said in its article that 'most' of the 300 million people potentially affected would be indigenous or tribal people. But when pressed, the group's staff said it's not clear that it would be a majority. They told us they should have said 'many.' Conservation efforts can displace indigenous people There are countless examples in history of indigenous people being forced off their land in the name of conservation. In Botswana, the government banned the San people of the Kalahari desert from their traditional lands to boost tourism and mining. In Thailand, two national park officials were charged with the murder of an indigenous human rights defender in 2019. The government later sought to have the forest that the activist had fought over designated as a UNESCO world heritage site. In the U.S., Montana's Glacier National Park was carved out of land used by the Blackfeet Nation. Initially, tribe members had negotiated to hold on to hunting and fishing rights. But when the park was created in 1910, they lost everything. The abuses continue today, and there's no guarantee that they won't happen under the 30x30 initiative. But protecting land doesn't have to entail displacing people. It is a risk, not a certainty. And the extent of that risk depends on how the land is protected. Globally, policies in the category of conservation vary, from cutting off all human activity, to allowing traditional practices, to allowing other sustainable uses. Each nation can craft its own rules for each situation. In the U.S., the interplay of legislation, an open public process and executive decisions have produced places where many uses are allowed, and others where there are no roads and no permanent residences. Researcher Stephen Garnett at Charles Darwin University in Australia cautioned that Survival International's 300 million estimate, when applied to 30x30, is shaky for two reasons. First, we can't know for sure which lands would be conserved under the plan. Second, the 30x30 strategy doesn't hinge on setting land aside in a way that would ban farming or other land uses. Garnett says Australia has approached this by designating 'Indigenous Protected Areas' to make sure aboriginal residents can continue to live on and use the land as they always have. They make up nearly half of Australia's conserved areas, he said. Not all protected areas follow the same script A quick look at Survival International's own website shows the pitfalls of treating all types of conservation projects as a threat to indigenous people. One news brief focuses on a tribe in India protesting their eviction from traditional honey-gathering sites inside the Nagarhole National Park. With backing from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the land is now a refuge for tigers, and a source of tourism dollars. But another bulletin tells the story of an indigenous group in Peru that wants an international human rights commission to enforce protections for land that was supposed to be kept as a tribal reserve. The Peruvian government, the post said, had reactivated logging, oil and gas concessions in these areas. Both are examples of conservation efforts. But in the first case, conservation leads to the eviction of people. In the second, conservation is a tool to protect traditional uses of the land. Survival International campaign director Fiore Longo acknowledged in an email to PolitiFact that the terms can get confusing, and 'we have to see what a protected area means and which model is applied where.' But in the dire prediction on its website that 30x30 would put 300 million people at risk, Survival International doesn't spell out those nuances. 'The main assumption to yield a number like that is that anyone in a future protected area would get kicked out,' said University of Maryland ecology professor Erle Ellis. 'This is not the intention of anyone working on 30x30.' | Our ruling Survival International said under the 30x30 plan, '300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples.' The 300 million figure is derived from a study on the impact of land conservation efforts, but not the 30x30 initiative specifically. While conservation efforts have led to forced evictions in the past, that's not always the case, and the assumption that 30x30 would do so runs counter to the stated priorities of the nations pressing for the plan. Survival International said it should have said 'many' not 'most' of the 300 million would be indigenous people. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"100370-proof-45-551ffdde8d068771a26f02bb66de7693.jpg"
]
|
'And I heard that just yesterday, Joe Biden said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement. | Contradiction | Former Vice President Joe Biden has rejected the notion of 'defunding the police,' but that hasn't stopped his critics from trying to pin the slogan on him. A recent Trump campaign ad misrepresented Biden's stated position. And now a chorus of conservative voices is seizing on snippets of an interview as evidence that the former vice president does support defunding the police after all. Vice President Mike Pence on July 9 visited the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 in Northeast Philadelphia for a Back the Blue rally with an audience of 300 police officers and their supporters. Pence recognized officers killed or injured in the line of duty and denounced calls to defund police departments across the country. 'And I heard that, just yesterday, Joe Biden said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement,'' Pence said. But Biden's actual comments didn't go as far as Pence claimed. Biden said in the interview that he is open to shifting some federal police funds to other programs. Otherwise, he has proposed increasing federal funding for community policing, and has consistently called for linking federal law-enforcement funding to policing reforms. And while Biden did use the word 'enemy' in his comments, Pence distorted what Biden actually said. What Biden has said Trump has falsely claimed that Biden wants to 'defund the police.' That term isn't a precise concept. While some protesters seeking police reform want to eliminate police departments entirely, most public officials who have used the phrase want to revisit the functions of police departments and redirect some of their funding toward social services. Biden has repeatedly stated his opposition to defunding the police. 'I don't support defunding the police,' Biden told CBS News in a clip aired June 8. 'I support conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness - and, in fact, are able to demonstrate they can protect the community and everybody in the community.' He repeated that stance in a June 10 op-ed in USA Today. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' Biden wrote. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.' Biden has actually taken some heat from activists for his relatively moderate position on the issue. In June, more than 50 liberal groups signed a letter to Biden calling on him to support defunding police and criticizing his promise to add $300 million for community policing programs. New interview Pence's statement followed a video interview Biden did with liberal activist Ady Barkan that posted July 8. The Biden campaign told us that the video was edited before being shared online. Barkan spent most of the 27-minute remote interview asking about health care. But about 20 minutes in, the discussion turned to George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, both of whom were killed in encounters with police. Alluding to demands made by Black Lives Matter, Barkan said deadly police encounters with citizens could be reduced if some police funding were redirected to social services, mental health counseling and affordable housing. 'Are you open to that kind of reform?' he asked. Biden replied: 'Yes. I proposed that kind of reform.' Biden said he has called for more mental health funding, as well as police reforms such as transparency in officer misconduct records. He did not speak directly about reducing police funding. Biden then talked about police using military equipment in their communities, which is where the 'enemy' comment came up: 'Surplus military equipment for law enforcement - they don't need that. The last thing you need is an up-armored Humvee coming into a neighborhood; it's like the military invading. They don't know anybody; they become the enemy, they're supposed to be protecting these people.' Barkan then interjected, asking: 'But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?' Biden replied: 'Yes. Absolutely.' The Biden campaign gave PolitiFact an audio recording of that portion of the interview. After, 'Yes. Absolutely,' according to the recording, Biden said, 'And by the way, not just redirect, condition them.' He offered holding up federal law enforcement grants if agencies used no-knock warrants or did not eliminate choke holds. So, Biden said he 'absolutely' would shift some funds from police to other services, but he has also proposed adding funding for community policing. | Our ruling Pence said Biden 'said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement.'' Biden said police become the enemy when they use military equipment in a way that's like invading a neighborhood. That context is missing from Pence's portrayal. Biden also said he is open to redirecting some police funding to social services, but he has stated opposition to fully defunding the police. In fact, he has proposed more funding for community policing and using federal funding to incentivize police reform. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. PolitiFact Pennsylvania reporter Jessica Calafeti contributed to this article. | [
"100382-proof-24-4280e9b5678a876da1fccfd6db2ce72b.jpg"
]
|
'And I heard that just yesterday, Joe Biden said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement. | Contradiction | Former Vice President Joe Biden has rejected the notion of 'defunding the police,' but that hasn't stopped his critics from trying to pin the slogan on him. A recent Trump campaign ad misrepresented Biden's stated position. And now a chorus of conservative voices is seizing on snippets of an interview as evidence that the former vice president does support defunding the police after all. Vice President Mike Pence on July 9 visited the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 in Northeast Philadelphia for a Back the Blue rally with an audience of 300 police officers and their supporters. Pence recognized officers killed or injured in the line of duty and denounced calls to defund police departments across the country. 'And I heard that, just yesterday, Joe Biden said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement,'' Pence said. But Biden's actual comments didn't go as far as Pence claimed. Biden said in the interview that he is open to shifting some federal police funds to other programs. Otherwise, he has proposed increasing federal funding for community policing, and has consistently called for linking federal law-enforcement funding to policing reforms. And while Biden did use the word 'enemy' in his comments, Pence distorted what Biden actually said. What Biden has said Trump has falsely claimed that Biden wants to 'defund the police.' That term isn't a precise concept. While some protesters seeking police reform want to eliminate police departments entirely, most public officials who have used the phrase want to revisit the functions of police departments and redirect some of their funding toward social services. Biden has repeatedly stated his opposition to defunding the police. 'I don't support defunding the police,' Biden told CBS News in a clip aired June 8. 'I support conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness - and, in fact, are able to demonstrate they can protect the community and everybody in the community.' He repeated that stance in a June 10 op-ed in USA Today. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' Biden wrote. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.' Biden has actually taken some heat from activists for his relatively moderate position on the issue. In June, more than 50 liberal groups signed a letter to Biden calling on him to support defunding police and criticizing his promise to add $300 million for community policing programs. New interview Pence's statement followed a video interview Biden did with liberal activist Ady Barkan that posted July 8. The Biden campaign told us that the video was edited before being shared online. Barkan spent most of the 27-minute remote interview asking about health care. But about 20 minutes in, the discussion turned to George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, both of whom were killed in encounters with police. Alluding to demands made by Black Lives Matter, Barkan said deadly police encounters with citizens could be reduced if some police funding were redirected to social services, mental health counseling and affordable housing. 'Are you open to that kind of reform?' he asked. Biden replied: 'Yes. I proposed that kind of reform.' Biden said he has called for more mental health funding, as well as police reforms such as transparency in officer misconduct records. He did not speak directly about reducing police funding. Biden then talked about police using military equipment in their communities, which is where the 'enemy' comment came up: 'Surplus military equipment for law enforcement - they don't need that. The last thing you need is an up-armored Humvee coming into a neighborhood; it's like the military invading. They don't know anybody; they become the enemy, they're supposed to be protecting these people.' Barkan then interjected, asking: 'But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?' Biden replied: 'Yes. Absolutely.' The Biden campaign gave PolitiFact an audio recording of that portion of the interview. After, 'Yes. Absolutely,' according to the recording, Biden said, 'And by the way, not just redirect, condition them.' He offered holding up federal law enforcement grants if agencies used no-knock warrants or did not eliminate choke holds. So, Biden said he 'absolutely' would shift some funds from police to other services, but he has also proposed adding funding for community policing. | Our ruling Pence said Biden 'said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement.'' Biden said police become the enemy when they use military equipment in a way that's like invading a neighborhood. That context is missing from Pence's portrayal. Biden also said he is open to redirecting some police funding to social services, but he has stated opposition to fully defunding the police. In fact, he has proposed more funding for community policing and using federal funding to incentivize police reform. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. PolitiFact Pennsylvania reporter Jessica Calafeti contributed to this article. | [
"100382-proof-24-4280e9b5678a876da1fccfd6db2ce72b.jpg"
]
|
'And I heard that just yesterday, Joe Biden said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement. | Contradiction | Former Vice President Joe Biden has rejected the notion of 'defunding the police,' but that hasn't stopped his critics from trying to pin the slogan on him. A recent Trump campaign ad misrepresented Biden's stated position. And now a chorus of conservative voices is seizing on snippets of an interview as evidence that the former vice president does support defunding the police after all. Vice President Mike Pence on July 9 visited the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 in Northeast Philadelphia for a Back the Blue rally with an audience of 300 police officers and their supporters. Pence recognized officers killed or injured in the line of duty and denounced calls to defund police departments across the country. 'And I heard that, just yesterday, Joe Biden said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement,'' Pence said. But Biden's actual comments didn't go as far as Pence claimed. Biden said in the interview that he is open to shifting some federal police funds to other programs. Otherwise, he has proposed increasing federal funding for community policing, and has consistently called for linking federal law-enforcement funding to policing reforms. And while Biden did use the word 'enemy' in his comments, Pence distorted what Biden actually said. What Biden has said Trump has falsely claimed that Biden wants to 'defund the police.' That term isn't a precise concept. While some protesters seeking police reform want to eliminate police departments entirely, most public officials who have used the phrase want to revisit the functions of police departments and redirect some of their funding toward social services. Biden has repeatedly stated his opposition to defunding the police. 'I don't support defunding the police,' Biden told CBS News in a clip aired June 8. 'I support conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness - and, in fact, are able to demonstrate they can protect the community and everybody in the community.' He repeated that stance in a June 10 op-ed in USA Today. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' Biden wrote. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.' Biden has actually taken some heat from activists for his relatively moderate position on the issue. In June, more than 50 liberal groups signed a letter to Biden calling on him to support defunding police and criticizing his promise to add $300 million for community policing programs. New interview Pence's statement followed a video interview Biden did with liberal activist Ady Barkan that posted July 8. The Biden campaign told us that the video was edited before being shared online. Barkan spent most of the 27-minute remote interview asking about health care. But about 20 minutes in, the discussion turned to George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, both of whom were killed in encounters with police. Alluding to demands made by Black Lives Matter, Barkan said deadly police encounters with citizens could be reduced if some police funding were redirected to social services, mental health counseling and affordable housing. 'Are you open to that kind of reform?' he asked. Biden replied: 'Yes. I proposed that kind of reform.' Biden said he has called for more mental health funding, as well as police reforms such as transparency in officer misconduct records. He did not speak directly about reducing police funding. Biden then talked about police using military equipment in their communities, which is where the 'enemy' comment came up: 'Surplus military equipment for law enforcement - they don't need that. The last thing you need is an up-armored Humvee coming into a neighborhood; it's like the military invading. They don't know anybody; they become the enemy, they're supposed to be protecting these people.' Barkan then interjected, asking: 'But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?' Biden replied: 'Yes. Absolutely.' The Biden campaign gave PolitiFact an audio recording of that portion of the interview. After, 'Yes. Absolutely,' according to the recording, Biden said, 'And by the way, not just redirect, condition them.' He offered holding up federal law enforcement grants if agencies used no-knock warrants or did not eliminate choke holds. So, Biden said he 'absolutely' would shift some funds from police to other services, but he has also proposed adding funding for community policing. | Our ruling Pence said Biden 'said that well-armed police in his words 'become the enemy' and he said that he would 'absolutely cut funding for law enforcement.'' Biden said police become the enemy when they use military equipment in a way that's like invading a neighborhood. That context is missing from Pence's portrayal. Biden also said he is open to redirecting some police funding to social services, but he has stated opposition to fully defunding the police. In fact, he has proposed more funding for community policing and using federal funding to incentivize police reform. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. PolitiFact Pennsylvania reporter Jessica Calafeti contributed to this article. | [
"100382-proof-24-4280e9b5678a876da1fccfd6db2ce72b.jpg"
]
|
'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie. | Contradiction | NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers kicked off quite the social media stir after he tested positive for COVID-19 Nov. 3 and then went on a sports talk show two days later to discuss it. Rodgers began sharing some falsehoods about vaccines during an appearance on 'The Pat McAfee Show' Nov. 5 - and one statement in particular had us doing the discount double fact-check. 'This idea that it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie,' Rodgers said, mentioning that he knew of many vaccinated people who had gotten sick with the virus. 'If the vaccine is so great then how come people are still getting COVID and spreading COVID and unfortunately dying from COVID?' The 37-year-old Green Bay Packer revealed that he chose an alternative treatment against COVID-19 instead of getting vaccinated, because he has an allergy to an ingredient in the mRNA vaccines, and was hesitant about the safety of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after its use was briefly halted in April due to concern about blood clots. Vaccinated people can get COVID-19 - but unvaccinated people are far more likely to catch and spread the virus, and are at a higher risk of being hospitalized or dying. Here's what the evidence shows. The timeline of COVID-19 First, it's important to note that the coronavirus spread widely in the spring and fall of 2020, before vaccines were widely available - in other words, the virus took root among unvaccinated people. By the time the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved and distributed for emergency use in the United States in December 2020, the total number of cases in the country had spiked higher than 17.2 million, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The delta variant began spreading quickly in the U.S. in mid-2021, at a time when vaccination rates were rising. But in a previous fact check, Dr. Daniel B. Fagbuyi, emergency room physician and former Obama administration appointee to the National Biodefense Science Board, disputed a claim that vaccinated people were the ones responsible for spreading the COVID-19 variants. 'If that were the case, based on all the other (COVID-19) cases, we wouldn't have seen all these variants before we got the vaccines,' Fagbuyi said. The alpha, beta and gamma variants were found first in unvaccinated populations. And Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, pointed out that the delta variant was first detected in India, which was largely unvaccinated at the time. The risks of catching COVID-19 now Now that the vaccines are available, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a recent study that unvaccinated participants who had prior infection were over five times more likely to catch COVID-19 than fully vaccinated participants, and another study showed that unvaccinated people are over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19. Vaccinated people can still catch COVID-19 - no vaccine is perfect - but they contract it at a much lower rate. A New York Times analysis found that a vaccinated American's odds of getting a breakthrough case of COVID-19 is 1-in-5,000 a day. We reported in September that it could be even lower than that - according to a calculation of CDC data, the chances were about 1-in-5,000 per week, or about 1-in-35,000 per day. Another answer to Rodgers' question about breakthrough infections: Some vaccinated people can still be at risk of getting severe cases of COVID-19 because they have immune system deficiencies that may limit the vaccines' effectiveness. Fewer than 3% of Americans are immunocompromised, and the CDC says that they 'may not build the same level of immunity to 2-dose vaccine series compared to people who are not immunocompromised.' The CDC recommends that people with moderate to severe immunodeficiency receive a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Gen. Colin Powell's recent death was one such case. Powell had been fully vaccinated with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine, but was 84 years old and had battled Parkinson's disease and multiple myeloma. He became sick before he could receive his third dose. We reached out to Rodgers through the Green Bay Packers, but a team spokesperson told PolitiFact that Rodgers is still on the reserve list as he recovers from COVID-19 and is not yet available to talk to the media. RELATED VIDEO @politifact NFL QB Aaron Rodgers just said there are no long-term studies of COVID-19 vaccines and fertility issues. He's wrong. ##aaronrodgers ##covid19 ##vaccine ♬ original sound - PolitiFact | Our ruling Rodgers claimed that the idea that the pandemic being one of the unvaccinated is a 'total lie.' The virus started and spread among unvaccinated people before vaccines were developed and rolled out, and COVID-19 variants like the delta variant were first detected among populations that were unvaccinated. Vaccinated people can catch COVID-19, but at much lower rates than those who are unvaccinated. They are even less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus. Fewer than 3% of people in the U.S. have immune system deficiencies, which puts them at a higher risk of catching COVID-19. The CDC recommends that people with moderate to severe immunodeficiencies get a third dose of the vaccine to build up immunity. We rate Rodgers' claim False. | [
"100397-proof-08-18803af683c201ae84a90fb6968c567b.jpg"
]
|
'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie. | Contradiction | NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers kicked off quite the social media stir after he tested positive for COVID-19 Nov. 3 and then went on a sports talk show two days later to discuss it. Rodgers began sharing some falsehoods about vaccines during an appearance on 'The Pat McAfee Show' Nov. 5 - and one statement in particular had us doing the discount double fact-check. 'This idea that it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie,' Rodgers said, mentioning that he knew of many vaccinated people who had gotten sick with the virus. 'If the vaccine is so great then how come people are still getting COVID and spreading COVID and unfortunately dying from COVID?' The 37-year-old Green Bay Packer revealed that he chose an alternative treatment against COVID-19 instead of getting vaccinated, because he has an allergy to an ingredient in the mRNA vaccines, and was hesitant about the safety of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after its use was briefly halted in April due to concern about blood clots. Vaccinated people can get COVID-19 - but unvaccinated people are far more likely to catch and spread the virus, and are at a higher risk of being hospitalized or dying. Here's what the evidence shows. The timeline of COVID-19 First, it's important to note that the coronavirus spread widely in the spring and fall of 2020, before vaccines were widely available - in other words, the virus took root among unvaccinated people. By the time the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved and distributed for emergency use in the United States in December 2020, the total number of cases in the country had spiked higher than 17.2 million, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The delta variant began spreading quickly in the U.S. in mid-2021, at a time when vaccination rates were rising. But in a previous fact check, Dr. Daniel B. Fagbuyi, emergency room physician and former Obama administration appointee to the National Biodefense Science Board, disputed a claim that vaccinated people were the ones responsible for spreading the COVID-19 variants. 'If that were the case, based on all the other (COVID-19) cases, we wouldn't have seen all these variants before we got the vaccines,' Fagbuyi said. The alpha, beta and gamma variants were found first in unvaccinated populations. And Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, pointed out that the delta variant was first detected in India, which was largely unvaccinated at the time. The risks of catching COVID-19 now Now that the vaccines are available, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a recent study that unvaccinated participants who had prior infection were over five times more likely to catch COVID-19 than fully vaccinated participants, and another study showed that unvaccinated people are over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19. Vaccinated people can still catch COVID-19 - no vaccine is perfect - but they contract it at a much lower rate. A New York Times analysis found that a vaccinated American's odds of getting a breakthrough case of COVID-19 is 1-in-5,000 a day. We reported in September that it could be even lower than that - according to a calculation of CDC data, the chances were about 1-in-5,000 per week, or about 1-in-35,000 per day. Another answer to Rodgers' question about breakthrough infections: Some vaccinated people can still be at risk of getting severe cases of COVID-19 because they have immune system deficiencies that may limit the vaccines' effectiveness. Fewer than 3% of Americans are immunocompromised, and the CDC says that they 'may not build the same level of immunity to 2-dose vaccine series compared to people who are not immunocompromised.' The CDC recommends that people with moderate to severe immunodeficiency receive a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Gen. Colin Powell's recent death was one such case. Powell had been fully vaccinated with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine, but was 84 years old and had battled Parkinson's disease and multiple myeloma. He became sick before he could receive his third dose. We reached out to Rodgers through the Green Bay Packers, but a team spokesperson told PolitiFact that Rodgers is still on the reserve list as he recovers from COVID-19 and is not yet available to talk to the media. RELATED VIDEO @politifact NFL QB Aaron Rodgers just said there are no long-term studies of COVID-19 vaccines and fertility issues. He's wrong. ##aaronrodgers ##covid19 ##vaccine ♬ original sound - PolitiFact | Our ruling Rodgers claimed that the idea that the pandemic being one of the unvaccinated is a 'total lie.' The virus started and spread among unvaccinated people before vaccines were developed and rolled out, and COVID-19 variants like the delta variant were first detected among populations that were unvaccinated. Vaccinated people can catch COVID-19, but at much lower rates than those who are unvaccinated. They are even less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus. Fewer than 3% of people in the U.S. have immune system deficiencies, which puts them at a higher risk of catching COVID-19. The CDC recommends that people with moderate to severe immunodeficiencies get a third dose of the vaccine to build up immunity. We rate Rodgers' claim False. | [
"100397-proof-08-18803af683c201ae84a90fb6968c567b.jpg"
]
|
Diesel prices jumped from $1.69 to $3.19 since Biden took office, and the president is to blame. | Contradiction | A new party in the White House means it's time for a time-honored American tradition - the blame game. Anything wrong in the world is now the fault of the two-month old administration. Or the fault of the prior administration, depending on your political persuasion. With gas prices on the move, this exercise is in full effect on social media. That includes a widely-shared March 10, 2021 Facebook post. 'When Sleepy Joe Came In Diesel Was $1.69,' it reads. 'Today Diesel Is $3.19. Thanks To All That Voted For This Clown.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). This poster gets it wrong on both the specifics and the blame. Here's why. Wrong numbers Diesel prices are indeed up. The March 15 national average of $3.07 was the highest since June 2019. But the numbers in the post are way off the mark. The national average price for diesel was $2.64 per gallon on Jan. 20 when President Joe Biden, a Democrat, took the oath of office, according to GasBuddy.com price trackers. That's almost a dollar higher than the post claims. Meanwhile, the March 10 national average was $3.04, less than the post claimed. So, there was an increase, but a far smaller one. Weekly price data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows similar movement, from $2.70 to $3.14 based on the weeks closest to those points in time. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, diesel rose from $2.50 to $2.90 between January 20 and March 10, according to GasBuddy. The poster did not respond to a message from PolitiFact Wisconsin seeking evidence of his claim. He lives in Iowa, according to his profile, but using local numbers doesn't help his case much. GasBuddy shows prices in Des Moines rose over that span from $2.45 to $3.00 per gallon, a slightly larger jump, but still far from the post's claim. Biden not to blame for spikes The post - like many others pointing a finger at Biden over prices at the pump - is also wrong on the fundamental blame element. The price movement we're seeing now on both diesel and gas isn't related to Biden's policy changes, experts say. For starters, the trend predates Biden. Diesel prices have steadily risen since the start of November, when Republican President Donald Trump was in office. And Biden's policies aren't having any immediate impact. Biden shut down the planned Keystone XL pipeline expansion, which was to run from Canada to Nebraska. Experts consulted by PolitiFact said that decision could make oil transportation less efficient longterm, but even then they doubted it would directly affect US costs. Reuters reports existing pipelines and ongoing expansions are expected to be sufficient for the flow between the U.S. and Canada, which provides about half of America's imported oil. The president also imposed a 60-day ban on new fracking permits, but that doesn't affect existing operations. Oil producers weren't likely to be pursuing new locations now anyhow since they're scrambling to bring back online production that was scaled back in 2020, experts say. In reality, diesel and gas prices - like many things in 2021 - are all about the pandemic. The reduction of economic activity, and people traveling and moving around less, reduced demand for diesel and gas both in 2020, causing a related drop in oil production amid steep financial losses in the oil industry. The Energy Information Administration, an independent government agency that provides analysis for policymakers and the public, said demand for diesel fell 8% in 2020, while demand for gas dropped by 13%. Demand is now rising quickly as the COVID-19 picture improves and the economy rebounds, but it takes time to get the supply back to normal. The Energy Information Administration says crude oil production in the U.S. was down in 2020 and will drop again in 2021 'as a result of a decline in drilling activity related to low oil prices.' It projects an increase in 2022. 'We're headed for higher (price) territory until the market sees more crude oil, whether that's supplied from the U.S. or Canadian interests or OPEC,' said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy.com. 'We are in a pretty significant imbalance. Demand has screamed higher, and production has been moving at a turtle's pace, and part of that is because the depths of the crisis were so severe for oil companies.' Energy and security analyst Patricia Schouker described the same dynamic to AFP, a France-based global news agency, saying recovering demand and limited production has 'pushed crude prices to their highest levels since near the start of the coronavirus pandemic.' Outside of market-altering events like the pandemic, prices of both fuels are driven primarily by the cost of crude oil, which is in turn driven by an array of world economic conditions that influence supply and demand. As Schouker noted, presidents have ''very little direct influence' over gas and diesel prices. De Haan said the irony of blaming Biden is that the increasing demand is related to the growing economy. So the people prone to wrongly blame Biden for gas prices would also be slow to credit him for the economy, even though those are two sides of the same coin. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims Diesel prices have risen from $1.69 to $3.19 since Biden took office, blaming him for that jump. The numbers aren't close to right - the actual increase was more like 40 cents, not $1.50. The blame element is equally off base. Diesel (and gas) prices are rising due to swelling demand as movement and economic activity increase amid the coronavirus recovery. Expert say it could take until 2022 for oil production to return to pre-pandemic levels, causing a shortage in the meantime that will drive prices up. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"100398-proof-03-08445beb3c7a2895dda0ae4699bcf1ca.jpg"
]
|
Diesel prices jumped from $1.69 to $3.19 since Biden took office, and the president is to blame. | Contradiction | A new party in the White House means it's time for a time-honored American tradition - the blame game. Anything wrong in the world is now the fault of the two-month old administration. Or the fault of the prior administration, depending on your political persuasion. With gas prices on the move, this exercise is in full effect on social media. That includes a widely-shared March 10, 2021 Facebook post. 'When Sleepy Joe Came In Diesel Was $1.69,' it reads. 'Today Diesel Is $3.19. Thanks To All That Voted For This Clown.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). This poster gets it wrong on both the specifics and the blame. Here's why. Wrong numbers Diesel prices are indeed up. The March 15 national average of $3.07 was the highest since June 2019. But the numbers in the post are way off the mark. The national average price for diesel was $2.64 per gallon on Jan. 20 when President Joe Biden, a Democrat, took the oath of office, according to GasBuddy.com price trackers. That's almost a dollar higher than the post claims. Meanwhile, the March 10 national average was $3.04, less than the post claimed. So, there was an increase, but a far smaller one. Weekly price data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows similar movement, from $2.70 to $3.14 based on the weeks closest to those points in time. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, diesel rose from $2.50 to $2.90 between January 20 and March 10, according to GasBuddy. The poster did not respond to a message from PolitiFact Wisconsin seeking evidence of his claim. He lives in Iowa, according to his profile, but using local numbers doesn't help his case much. GasBuddy shows prices in Des Moines rose over that span from $2.45 to $3.00 per gallon, a slightly larger jump, but still far from the post's claim. Biden not to blame for spikes The post - like many others pointing a finger at Biden over prices at the pump - is also wrong on the fundamental blame element. The price movement we're seeing now on both diesel and gas isn't related to Biden's policy changes, experts say. For starters, the trend predates Biden. Diesel prices have steadily risen since the start of November, when Republican President Donald Trump was in office. And Biden's policies aren't having any immediate impact. Biden shut down the planned Keystone XL pipeline expansion, which was to run from Canada to Nebraska. Experts consulted by PolitiFact said that decision could make oil transportation less efficient longterm, but even then they doubted it would directly affect US costs. Reuters reports existing pipelines and ongoing expansions are expected to be sufficient for the flow between the U.S. and Canada, which provides about half of America's imported oil. The president also imposed a 60-day ban on new fracking permits, but that doesn't affect existing operations. Oil producers weren't likely to be pursuing new locations now anyhow since they're scrambling to bring back online production that was scaled back in 2020, experts say. In reality, diesel and gas prices - like many things in 2021 - are all about the pandemic. The reduction of economic activity, and people traveling and moving around less, reduced demand for diesel and gas both in 2020, causing a related drop in oil production amid steep financial losses in the oil industry. The Energy Information Administration, an independent government agency that provides analysis for policymakers and the public, said demand for diesel fell 8% in 2020, while demand for gas dropped by 13%. Demand is now rising quickly as the COVID-19 picture improves and the economy rebounds, but it takes time to get the supply back to normal. The Energy Information Administration says crude oil production in the U.S. was down in 2020 and will drop again in 2021 'as a result of a decline in drilling activity related to low oil prices.' It projects an increase in 2022. 'We're headed for higher (price) territory until the market sees more crude oil, whether that's supplied from the U.S. or Canadian interests or OPEC,' said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy.com. 'We are in a pretty significant imbalance. Demand has screamed higher, and production has been moving at a turtle's pace, and part of that is because the depths of the crisis were so severe for oil companies.' Energy and security analyst Patricia Schouker described the same dynamic to AFP, a France-based global news agency, saying recovering demand and limited production has 'pushed crude prices to their highest levels since near the start of the coronavirus pandemic.' Outside of market-altering events like the pandemic, prices of both fuels are driven primarily by the cost of crude oil, which is in turn driven by an array of world economic conditions that influence supply and demand. As Schouker noted, presidents have ''very little direct influence' over gas and diesel prices. De Haan said the irony of blaming Biden is that the increasing demand is related to the growing economy. So the people prone to wrongly blame Biden for gas prices would also be slow to credit him for the economy, even though those are two sides of the same coin. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims Diesel prices have risen from $1.69 to $3.19 since Biden took office, blaming him for that jump. The numbers aren't close to right - the actual increase was more like 40 cents, not $1.50. The blame element is equally off base. Diesel (and gas) prices are rising due to swelling demand as movement and economic activity increase amid the coronavirus recovery. Expert say it could take until 2022 for oil production to return to pre-pandemic levels, causing a shortage in the meantime that will drive prices up. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"100398-proof-03-08445beb3c7a2895dda0ae4699bcf1ca.jpg"
]
|
Diesel prices jumped from $1.69 to $3.19 since Biden took office, and the president is to blame. | Contradiction | A new party in the White House means it's time for a time-honored American tradition - the blame game. Anything wrong in the world is now the fault of the two-month old administration. Or the fault of the prior administration, depending on your political persuasion. With gas prices on the move, this exercise is in full effect on social media. That includes a widely-shared March 10, 2021 Facebook post. 'When Sleepy Joe Came In Diesel Was $1.69,' it reads. 'Today Diesel Is $3.19. Thanks To All That Voted For This Clown.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). This poster gets it wrong on both the specifics and the blame. Here's why. Wrong numbers Diesel prices are indeed up. The March 15 national average of $3.07 was the highest since June 2019. But the numbers in the post are way off the mark. The national average price for diesel was $2.64 per gallon on Jan. 20 when President Joe Biden, a Democrat, took the oath of office, according to GasBuddy.com price trackers. That's almost a dollar higher than the post claims. Meanwhile, the March 10 national average was $3.04, less than the post claimed. So, there was an increase, but a far smaller one. Weekly price data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows similar movement, from $2.70 to $3.14 based on the weeks closest to those points in time. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, diesel rose from $2.50 to $2.90 between January 20 and March 10, according to GasBuddy. The poster did not respond to a message from PolitiFact Wisconsin seeking evidence of his claim. He lives in Iowa, according to his profile, but using local numbers doesn't help his case much. GasBuddy shows prices in Des Moines rose over that span from $2.45 to $3.00 per gallon, a slightly larger jump, but still far from the post's claim. Biden not to blame for spikes The post - like many others pointing a finger at Biden over prices at the pump - is also wrong on the fundamental blame element. The price movement we're seeing now on both diesel and gas isn't related to Biden's policy changes, experts say. For starters, the trend predates Biden. Diesel prices have steadily risen since the start of November, when Republican President Donald Trump was in office. And Biden's policies aren't having any immediate impact. Biden shut down the planned Keystone XL pipeline expansion, which was to run from Canada to Nebraska. Experts consulted by PolitiFact said that decision could make oil transportation less efficient longterm, but even then they doubted it would directly affect US costs. Reuters reports existing pipelines and ongoing expansions are expected to be sufficient for the flow between the U.S. and Canada, which provides about half of America's imported oil. The president also imposed a 60-day ban on new fracking permits, but that doesn't affect existing operations. Oil producers weren't likely to be pursuing new locations now anyhow since they're scrambling to bring back online production that was scaled back in 2020, experts say. In reality, diesel and gas prices - like many things in 2021 - are all about the pandemic. The reduction of economic activity, and people traveling and moving around less, reduced demand for diesel and gas both in 2020, causing a related drop in oil production amid steep financial losses in the oil industry. The Energy Information Administration, an independent government agency that provides analysis for policymakers and the public, said demand for diesel fell 8% in 2020, while demand for gas dropped by 13%. Demand is now rising quickly as the COVID-19 picture improves and the economy rebounds, but it takes time to get the supply back to normal. The Energy Information Administration says crude oil production in the U.S. was down in 2020 and will drop again in 2021 'as a result of a decline in drilling activity related to low oil prices.' It projects an increase in 2022. 'We're headed for higher (price) territory until the market sees more crude oil, whether that's supplied from the U.S. or Canadian interests or OPEC,' said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy.com. 'We are in a pretty significant imbalance. Demand has screamed higher, and production has been moving at a turtle's pace, and part of that is because the depths of the crisis were so severe for oil companies.' Energy and security analyst Patricia Schouker described the same dynamic to AFP, a France-based global news agency, saying recovering demand and limited production has 'pushed crude prices to their highest levels since near the start of the coronavirus pandemic.' Outside of market-altering events like the pandemic, prices of both fuels are driven primarily by the cost of crude oil, which is in turn driven by an array of world economic conditions that influence supply and demand. As Schouker noted, presidents have ''very little direct influence' over gas and diesel prices. De Haan said the irony of blaming Biden is that the increasing demand is related to the growing economy. So the people prone to wrongly blame Biden for gas prices would also be slow to credit him for the economy, even though those are two sides of the same coin. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims Diesel prices have risen from $1.69 to $3.19 since Biden took office, blaming him for that jump. The numbers aren't close to right - the actual increase was more like 40 cents, not $1.50. The blame element is equally off base. Diesel (and gas) prices are rising due to swelling demand as movement and economic activity increase amid the coronavirus recovery. Expert say it could take until 2022 for oil production to return to pre-pandemic levels, causing a shortage in the meantime that will drive prices up. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"100398-proof-03-08445beb3c7a2895dda0ae4699bcf1ca.jpg"
]
|
Image shows Harvard email terminating a student over social media accounts. | Contradiction | An image of a fake email saying that Harvard 'terminated' a student because of their social media accounts has been circulating online. The email is purportedly from Harvard College's Office of Undergraduate Education and reads: 'Dear student, It is with a heavy heart we inform you that you are being terminated from Harvard. This comes as a result of speculating your social media accounts and we believe that you do not transmit a good representation of the school. We wish you well in any future endeavors. Sincerely,' The image then cuts off above the signature. 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.) If the clumsy language weren't enough of a tipoff, Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane confirmed to both Reuters and the Associated Press that the email was fake. The email in the image has a header from Harvard's Office of Undergraduate Education. That office does not handle expulsions; it is responsible for administering the undergraduate curriculum. 'The Administrative Board, the Honor Council, and the Residential deans all govern student conduct,' Dane said in an email with PolitiFact. 'Social media isn't relevant. If a student were harassing others, or in violation of a rule in the handbook, the relevant offices would govern.' The Harvard College Student Handbook does not limit what a student can or cannot do on social media. However, the handbook says expulsions could result from violating Harvard's rules on academic integrity or from disciplinary action following a failure to adhere to their policies on issues including harassment, physical violence, and discrimination. The expulsion of Harvard students isn't often publicized, but there have been highly publicized instances where Harvard has revoked admission from incoming students because of posts circulating on social media. In 2019, Harvard rescinded admission from Kyle Kashuv, gun advocate and survivor of the 2018 Parkland, Fla., school shooting after past evidence of him using racial slurs surfaced online. Kashuv posted screenshots on Twitter of his emails with Harvard's admission office after the school revoked his admission. In one email, Harvard's admissions office said it reserves the right to revoke admission from incoming students 'if you engage or have engaged in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.' | Our ruling An email claimed that Harvard 'terminated' a student because of their social media accounts. The university told news agencies that the email was fake. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says the coronavirus isn't new because 'Lysol has it listed as one of the viruses that it kills. | Contradiction | Many social media users are sharing posts that suggest health officials are lying when they claim ignorance about the recent coronavirus outbreak, such as this one from Jan. 31. 'Don't fall for the B.S. they claim the Coronavirus is new... But regular over the counter Lysol has it listed as one of the viruses that it kills!' the post says. It shows one image of someone holding a Lysol disinfectant spray can, and another of what looks like the back of the can, where the words 'Human Coronavirus' appear. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already debunked several hoaxes and conspiracies about the coronavirus, including one that's similar to the claim in this Facebook post: that Clorox bottles prove the coronavirus was developed before the recent outbreak in China. Here's what you should know. There are seven kinds of coronaviruses that can infect humans. They were first identified in the mid-1960s and some of the viruses are common, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The strain of coronavirus spreading from Wuhan, China, is categorized as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). According to the World Health Organization, a novel coronavirus is a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans. The 2019 strain was first reported from Wuhan on Dec. 31. As of Feb. 4, more than 20,000 cases have been confirmed globally. Deaths total 426, with only one occurring outside of China. Some cleaning product labels mention 'human coronavirus' because those surface products have been proven effective against past strains of coronavirus. On its website, Lysol has a section dedicated to the coronavirus. It says that specific Lysol products, including its disinfectant spray, 'have demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-n-CoV) on hard, non-porous surfaces.' (Again, this is only when used to clean surfaces; such products should never be ingested!) This Facebook post falsely assumes that because the label for Lysol disinfectant spray includes mention of its effectiveness against 'coronavirus,' media descriptions of a current outbreak as being caused by a new virus are 'B.S.' But that assumption is wrong. The Lysol spray has demonstrated effectiveness against past strains of coronavirus. The current outbreak spreading from Wuhan, China, is caused by a previously unidentified strain known as the 2019 Novel coronavirus. Cleaning products that list coronavirus on their labels are not referring to this strain. We rate this Facebook post False. Daniel Funke contributed to this report. | We rate this Facebook post False. Daniel Funke contributed to this report. | []
|
Says the coronavirus isn't new because 'Lysol has it listed as one of the viruses that it kills. | Contradiction | Many social media users are sharing posts that suggest health officials are lying when they claim ignorance about the recent coronavirus outbreak, such as this one from Jan. 31. 'Don't fall for the B.S. they claim the Coronavirus is new... But regular over the counter Lysol has it listed as one of the viruses that it kills!' the post says. It shows one image of someone holding a Lysol disinfectant spray can, and another of what looks like the back of the can, where the words 'Human Coronavirus' appear. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already debunked several hoaxes and conspiracies about the coronavirus, including one that's similar to the claim in this Facebook post: that Clorox bottles prove the coronavirus was developed before the recent outbreak in China. Here's what you should know. There are seven kinds of coronaviruses that can infect humans. They were first identified in the mid-1960s and some of the viruses are common, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The strain of coronavirus spreading from Wuhan, China, is categorized as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). According to the World Health Organization, a novel coronavirus is a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans. The 2019 strain was first reported from Wuhan on Dec. 31. As of Feb. 4, more than 20,000 cases have been confirmed globally. Deaths total 426, with only one occurring outside of China. Some cleaning product labels mention 'human coronavirus' because those surface products have been proven effective against past strains of coronavirus. On its website, Lysol has a section dedicated to the coronavirus. It says that specific Lysol products, including its disinfectant spray, 'have demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-n-CoV) on hard, non-porous surfaces.' (Again, this is only when used to clean surfaces; such products should never be ingested!) This Facebook post falsely assumes that because the label for Lysol disinfectant spray includes mention of its effectiveness against 'coronavirus,' media descriptions of a current outbreak as being caused by a new virus are 'B.S.' But that assumption is wrong. The Lysol spray has demonstrated effectiveness against past strains of coronavirus. The current outbreak spreading from Wuhan, China, is caused by a previously unidentified strain known as the 2019 Novel coronavirus. Cleaning products that list coronavirus on their labels are not referring to this strain. We rate this Facebook post False. Daniel Funke contributed to this report. | We rate this Facebook post False. Daniel Funke contributed to this report. | []
|
Says the coronavirus isn't new because 'Lysol has it listed as one of the viruses that it kills. | Contradiction | Many social media users are sharing posts that suggest health officials are lying when they claim ignorance about the recent coronavirus outbreak, such as this one from Jan. 31. 'Don't fall for the B.S. they claim the Coronavirus is new... But regular over the counter Lysol has it listed as one of the viruses that it kills!' the post says. It shows one image of someone holding a Lysol disinfectant spray can, and another of what looks like the back of the can, where the words 'Human Coronavirus' appear. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already debunked several hoaxes and conspiracies about the coronavirus, including one that's similar to the claim in this Facebook post: that Clorox bottles prove the coronavirus was developed before the recent outbreak in China. Here's what you should know. There are seven kinds of coronaviruses that can infect humans. They were first identified in the mid-1960s and some of the viruses are common, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The strain of coronavirus spreading from Wuhan, China, is categorized as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). According to the World Health Organization, a novel coronavirus is a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans. The 2019 strain was first reported from Wuhan on Dec. 31. As of Feb. 4, more than 20,000 cases have been confirmed globally. Deaths total 426, with only one occurring outside of China. Some cleaning product labels mention 'human coronavirus' because those surface products have been proven effective against past strains of coronavirus. On its website, Lysol has a section dedicated to the coronavirus. It says that specific Lysol products, including its disinfectant spray, 'have demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-n-CoV) on hard, non-porous surfaces.' (Again, this is only when used to clean surfaces; such products should never be ingested!) This Facebook post falsely assumes that because the label for Lysol disinfectant spray includes mention of its effectiveness against 'coronavirus,' media descriptions of a current outbreak as being caused by a new virus are 'B.S.' But that assumption is wrong. The Lysol spray has demonstrated effectiveness against past strains of coronavirus. The current outbreak spreading from Wuhan, China, is caused by a previously unidentified strain known as the 2019 Novel coronavirus. Cleaning products that list coronavirus on their labels are not referring to this strain. We rate this Facebook post False. Daniel Funke contributed to this report. | We rate this Facebook post False. Daniel Funke contributed to this report. | []
|
'U.S. Census Bureau confirms huge conflict in total number of voters in 2020 election. | Contradiction | The U.S. Census Bureau has been sucked into the swirl of misinformation surrounding the 2020 presidential election. 'US Census Bureau confirms HUGE CONFLICT in total number of voters in 2020 election,' reads a claim that in recent days has appeared in Facebook posts and blog posts. They were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On Twitter, a U.S. Senate candidate from New York asked, 'Why did the US Census Bureau just confirm nearly 4 million more people voted in 2020 than were reported in the 2020 census data?' Some of the posts cited a website called The Election Wizard, which on May 4 published a post titled, 'Census reveals weird anomaly: Shows millions less voted in 2020 election than official tally.' The site said that the Census tallied 154,628,000 people voting in 2020. The post then went on to say that 'official results place the number of actual ballots cast slightly north of 158 million. That's a discrepancy of nearly four million votes.' The blog got it wrong. Census Bureau data does not show a discrepancy in the election results. Here's why: The data cited on the Election Wizard website comes from numbers released by the Census Bureau in April 2021 about reported voting and registration for the November 2020 election. According to that data, 154,628,000 people 18 and older reported that they voted in the election. Another 40,561,000 reported that they didn't vote. But more than 36 million - roughly 36,404,000 - didn't indicate whether they voted or not. That group included people who were either not asked if they voted, those who responded 'Don't Know' and those who refused to answer, according to the Census Bureau. So while the posts spreading online are highlighting a difference of about 4 million between the people who reported they voted and the more than 158,400,000 ballots cast for president in November, these numbers cited don't tell the whole story, because we don't know the actions of more than 36 million people who didn't tell the Census whether they voted or not. To say that the Census Bureau has confirmed a huge discrepancy in the total number of voters in the 2020 election and ballots cast is just wrong. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | [
"100420-proof-14-cea1845f38520d9225502baaa11c1bf9.jpg"
]
|
'U.S. Census Bureau confirms huge conflict in total number of voters in 2020 election. | Contradiction | The U.S. Census Bureau has been sucked into the swirl of misinformation surrounding the 2020 presidential election. 'US Census Bureau confirms HUGE CONFLICT in total number of voters in 2020 election,' reads a claim that in recent days has appeared in Facebook posts and blog posts. They were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On Twitter, a U.S. Senate candidate from New York asked, 'Why did the US Census Bureau just confirm nearly 4 million more people voted in 2020 than were reported in the 2020 census data?' Some of the posts cited a website called The Election Wizard, which on May 4 published a post titled, 'Census reveals weird anomaly: Shows millions less voted in 2020 election than official tally.' The site said that the Census tallied 154,628,000 people voting in 2020. The post then went on to say that 'official results place the number of actual ballots cast slightly north of 158 million. That's a discrepancy of nearly four million votes.' The blog got it wrong. Census Bureau data does not show a discrepancy in the election results. Here's why: The data cited on the Election Wizard website comes from numbers released by the Census Bureau in April 2021 about reported voting and registration for the November 2020 election. According to that data, 154,628,000 people 18 and older reported that they voted in the election. Another 40,561,000 reported that they didn't vote. But more than 36 million - roughly 36,404,000 - didn't indicate whether they voted or not. That group included people who were either not asked if they voted, those who responded 'Don't Know' and those who refused to answer, according to the Census Bureau. So while the posts spreading online are highlighting a difference of about 4 million between the people who reported they voted and the more than 158,400,000 ballots cast for president in November, these numbers cited don't tell the whole story, because we don't know the actions of more than 36 million people who didn't tell the Census whether they voted or not. To say that the Census Bureau has confirmed a huge discrepancy in the total number of voters in the 2020 election and ballots cast is just wrong. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | [
"100420-proof-14-cea1845f38520d9225502baaa11c1bf9.jpg"
]
|
'Portland goon squads were Blackwater contractors not federal officers. | Contradiction | Federal officers have detained people protesting against police brutality in Portland, Ore. But some Facebook users say they're not who they claim to be. 'Word on the street: Portland goon squads were Blackwater contractors not federal officers,' wrote one Facebook user on July 20. 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 versions have been shared thousands of times over the past couple of weeks, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool owned by Facebook. Portlanders have been protesting against police brutality since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in late May. In mid-July, reports started to surface that federal law enforcement agents were using unmarked cars to detain protesters. Videos show demonstrators being whisked away by camouflaged agents and beaten with batons. (Screenshot from Facebook) But how do we know they're federal officers - and does Blackwater have anything to do with what is unfolding in Portland? PolitiFact took a look. The Department of Homeland Security sent law enforcement teams to Portland as part of the federal government's response to ongoing protests over police brutality. President Donald Trump has announced plans to send additional forces to Chicago and Albuquerque, N.M. As of now, there is no publicly available evidence that Academi, a private military company previously known as Blackwater, is standing in for federal agents. Federal agents sent to Portland amid protests First, let's look at what's happening on the ground in Portland. The forces are part of new 'rapid deployment teams' that Homeland Security formed in response to a June 26 executive order from Trump, which instructs federal agencies to provide 'personnel to assist with the protection of federal monuments, memorials, statues, or property.' The teams are backing up the Federal Protective Service, which is tasked with guarding federal property. Rapid deployment teams are made up of personnel from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection, according to the New York Times. The U.S. Marshals Service also has officials in Portland. Stephanie Malin, a spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection, told PolitiFact in an email that the agency 'has only sworn agency personnel deployed in Portland.' The Coast Guard told us in an email that it has not deployed any personnel to Portland to address civil unrest. We reached out to Homeland Security and ICE for a comment, but we haven't heard back. What is Academi? Despite what the Facebook post says, there are federal officials in Portland. But what about Academi, formerly known as Blackwater? We found no publicly available evidence that the private military company is part of the federal government's 'rapid deployment teams.' Blackwater was founded in 1997 by former Navy SEALs, providing contract security globally. During the Iraq War, the company won more than $1 billion in contracts with the U.S. government. It gained notoriety in 2007, when a group of its employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians and injured 20 in Baghdad's Nisour Square. The guards, who were working for the U.S. State Department at the time, mistakenly thought they were under attack by insurgents. In 2015, four of the guards were sentenced in a U.S. court. Blackwater rebranded twice before a group of private investors purchased its North Carolina training facility in 2010. The new company, Academi, is now owned by a holding company called Constellis. Public documents show that Academi has a contract with the federal government to provide security training for law enforcement and first responders. Three related companies - the Centerra Group, Omniplex and American K-9 Detection Services - also have contracts with the federal government, two of which are to provide 'protective service occupations,' which can include security guards. RELATED: The federal government crackdown in Portland: What you need to know The Federal Protective Service oversees more than 13,000 contract security guards who 'conduct security screenings at federal buildings,' according to a 2015 Homeland Security fact sheet. Those contracts made up about 70% of the FPS budget during the 2015 fiscal year. However, public officials have made no public statements about using defense contractors in lieu of federal agents to quell protests in Portland. And we could find no news reports or public documents that say that's the case. We reached out to Constellis for a comment, but we haven't heard back. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that officers detaining protesters in Portland are from Academi, not the federal government. We found no publicly available evidence to support that claim. Homeland Security personnel have been sent to Portland amid ongoing protests against police brutality. Officials say they are backing up the Federal Protective Service to defend public property. The FPS does have thousands of contract security guards. Academi has a contract with the federal government to provide security training for law enforcement officers and first responders, and two related companies have contracts to provide security personnel. But we could find no statements from public officials, public documents or news reports about the government using contractors in lieu of federal agents to quell protests in Portland. There may well be Academi-linked contractors defending federal buildings in the city, but the Facebook post said they are standing in for federal officers. That claim is inaccurate, and we rate it False. | [
"100440-proof-28-915f682e9083e681abeef91551db825d.jpg"
]
|
Says 'Joe Biden is absolutely on board with defunding the police. | Contradiction | The funding of police forces across the country has made its way to center stage in the presidential race, after more than two months of protests over George Floyd's death at the hands of officers in Minneapolis. President Donald Trump's campaign has started running an ad in Wisconsin that claims presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is 'absolutely on board with defunding the police.' The 30-second ad, posted to Youtube on July 20, 2020, shows an older woman, seemingly home alone, watching a news program that shows protests in Seattle and other cities. The voiceover claims that Seattle is planning to defund its police department by 50%, as well as remove some 9-1-1 dispatchers. Then, the voice of Sean Hannity of Fox News is heard: 'Joe Biden is absolutely on board with defunding the police.' Immediately following that, Biden's voice can be heard saying: 'Yes. Absolutely.' Trump has also made the same charge against Biden over and over again. A June 7, 2020 tweet on stated that Biden and Democrats want to defund police and another tweet made the same claim on July 17, 2020. He also repeated the claim during a July 19, 2020 interview with Chris Wallace on 'Fox News Sunday.' But repeating -- and repeating -- a falsehood does not make it true. Biden is clear on police reform While some argue police departments should be eliminated entirely, as PolitiFact National detailed in a June 9, 2020 article, the use of the phrase 'defund the police' more typically means to revisit the functions of police departments and shift funding toward, for instance, mental health and social services. So, where does Biden land? On June 9, 2020, he told 'CBS Evening News' host Norah O'Donnell that he supports 'conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness.' The following day, in an opinion piece that ran in USA TODAY, Biden said that abuse of power in police departments must stop and that reform is the answer to problems -- not defunding. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' he wrote. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.' He then goes on to explain a $300 million plan to reinvigorate community policing in America, which would encourage relationship building between police officers and community members. Biden's campaign website says the $300 million would be used to set up grants that departments across the country could apply for to hire more officers. In order to get a grant, the departments would have to hire officers that reflect the racial diversity of the community they serve. So, Trump flatly misrepresents Biden's position. | Our ruling A Trump campaign ad running in Wisconsin claimed that Biden 'absolutely wants to defund police.' But Biden himself has said several times in interviews and op-eds that he does not support defunding the police. And his campaign platform actually includes hiring more officers, focused on community policing. We rate this claim False. | [
"100444-proof-26-4280e9b5678a876da1fccfd6db2ce72b.jpg"
]
|
Says 'Joe Biden is absolutely on board with defunding the police. | Contradiction | The funding of police forces across the country has made its way to center stage in the presidential race, after more than two months of protests over George Floyd's death at the hands of officers in Minneapolis. President Donald Trump's campaign has started running an ad in Wisconsin that claims presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is 'absolutely on board with defunding the police.' The 30-second ad, posted to Youtube on July 20, 2020, shows an older woman, seemingly home alone, watching a news program that shows protests in Seattle and other cities. The voiceover claims that Seattle is planning to defund its police department by 50%, as well as remove some 9-1-1 dispatchers. Then, the voice of Sean Hannity of Fox News is heard: 'Joe Biden is absolutely on board with defunding the police.' Immediately following that, Biden's voice can be heard saying: 'Yes. Absolutely.' Trump has also made the same charge against Biden over and over again. A June 7, 2020 tweet on stated that Biden and Democrats want to defund police and another tweet made the same claim on July 17, 2020. He also repeated the claim during a July 19, 2020 interview with Chris Wallace on 'Fox News Sunday.' But repeating -- and repeating -- a falsehood does not make it true. Biden is clear on police reform While some argue police departments should be eliminated entirely, as PolitiFact National detailed in a June 9, 2020 article, the use of the phrase 'defund the police' more typically means to revisit the functions of police departments and shift funding toward, for instance, mental health and social services. So, where does Biden land? On June 9, 2020, he told 'CBS Evening News' host Norah O'Donnell that he supports 'conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness.' The following day, in an opinion piece that ran in USA TODAY, Biden said that abuse of power in police departments must stop and that reform is the answer to problems -- not defunding. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' he wrote. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.' He then goes on to explain a $300 million plan to reinvigorate community policing in America, which would encourage relationship building between police officers and community members. Biden's campaign website says the $300 million would be used to set up grants that departments across the country could apply for to hire more officers. In order to get a grant, the departments would have to hire officers that reflect the racial diversity of the community they serve. So, Trump flatly misrepresents Biden's position. | Our ruling A Trump campaign ad running in Wisconsin claimed that Biden 'absolutely wants to defund police.' But Biden himself has said several times in interviews and op-eds that he does not support defunding the police. And his campaign platform actually includes hiring more officers, focused on community policing. We rate this claim False. | [
"100444-proof-26-4280e9b5678a876da1fccfd6db2ce72b.jpg"
]
|
'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences. | Contradiction | A Facebook post links to an article that makes an alarming claim about convicted murderers being released from prison: 'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences' reads the headline on a website called 'Law Enforcement Today.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We're going to sound an alarm of our own about this post. Overstating prosecutor's intent The article is about Ingham County Prosecutor Carol Siemon, a Democrat elected in 2016 who campaigned on making progressive changes in the criminal justice system. She previously served for 11 years as an assistant prosecutor in the office. The headline of the article, which blasts Siemon as being 'on a mission to empty her community's local prison,' suggests that the prosecutor wants to free the 90 killers and is moving to do so. But the article itself says only that Siemon will begin a review of the 90 cases. The article is based on a story from City Pulse, a news operation based in Lansing, the state capital, which is located partly in Ingham County. (The county seat, Mason, is about 15 miles away.) But the article's headline goes further, suggesting that the prosecutor is seeking the release of 90 inmates. City Pulse reported: 'Siemon - with pro-bono help from former Assistant Attorney General Ron Emery - this year plans to begin a formal review of the 90 convicted murderers serving life in prison without parole in Ingham County. And for a select few, she said she plans to seek a gubernatorial commutation that could get them back out on the streets. Siemon makes a clarification In Michigan, only the governor has the power to commute the inmates' sentences, if they are recommended for release by the state Parole Board, according to Siemon and news reports. Several days after the City Pulse story was published, Siemon released a statement saying she regretted not speaking beforehand to the families of people who could be affected by her decision to review the cases. But she said she would go ahead with her review, which would focus on cases from the 1970s and 1980s. 'I regret that I did not fully take into account the impact on victims and their families when I prematurely discussed the concept of reviewing older cases of life-without-parole,' Siemon said. 'My intent has always been that the victim's families or their representatives would get their first notice from trained professionals in our office after any review and before offering support or opposition to any application to commute a sentence. | Our ruling A Facebook post links to an article with a headline that claimed: 'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences.' The county prosecutor has said only that she would review the 90 cases and suggested it's likely that only a few of the inmates could be recommended to the state for possible release. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences. | Contradiction | A Facebook post links to an article that makes an alarming claim about convicted murderers being released from prison: 'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences' reads the headline on a website called 'Law Enforcement Today.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We're going to sound an alarm of our own about this post. Overstating prosecutor's intent The article is about Ingham County Prosecutor Carol Siemon, a Democrat elected in 2016 who campaigned on making progressive changes in the criminal justice system. She previously served for 11 years as an assistant prosecutor in the office. The headline of the article, which blasts Siemon as being 'on a mission to empty her community's local prison,' suggests that the prosecutor wants to free the 90 killers and is moving to do so. But the article itself says only that Siemon will begin a review of the 90 cases. The article is based on a story from City Pulse, a news operation based in Lansing, the state capital, which is located partly in Ingham County. (The county seat, Mason, is about 15 miles away.) But the article's headline goes further, suggesting that the prosecutor is seeking the release of 90 inmates. City Pulse reported: 'Siemon - with pro-bono help from former Assistant Attorney General Ron Emery - this year plans to begin a formal review of the 90 convicted murderers serving life in prison without parole in Ingham County. And for a select few, she said she plans to seek a gubernatorial commutation that could get them back out on the streets. Siemon makes a clarification In Michigan, only the governor has the power to commute the inmates' sentences, if they are recommended for release by the state Parole Board, according to Siemon and news reports. Several days after the City Pulse story was published, Siemon released a statement saying she regretted not speaking beforehand to the families of people who could be affected by her decision to review the cases. But she said she would go ahead with her review, which would focus on cases from the 1970s and 1980s. 'I regret that I did not fully take into account the impact on victims and their families when I prematurely discussed the concept of reviewing older cases of life-without-parole,' Siemon said. 'My intent has always been that the victim's families or their representatives would get their first notice from trained professionals in our office after any review and before offering support or opposition to any application to commute a sentence. | Our ruling A Facebook post links to an article with a headline that claimed: 'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences.' The county prosecutor has said only that she would review the 90 cases and suggested it's likely that only a few of the inmates could be recommended to the state for possible release. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences. | Contradiction | A Facebook post links to an article that makes an alarming claim about convicted murderers being released from prison: 'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences' reads the headline on a website called 'Law Enforcement Today.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We're going to sound an alarm of our own about this post. Overstating prosecutor's intent The article is about Ingham County Prosecutor Carol Siemon, a Democrat elected in 2016 who campaigned on making progressive changes in the criminal justice system. She previously served for 11 years as an assistant prosecutor in the office. The headline of the article, which blasts Siemon as being 'on a mission to empty her community's local prison,' suggests that the prosecutor wants to free the 90 killers and is moving to do so. But the article itself says only that Siemon will begin a review of the 90 cases. The article is based on a story from City Pulse, a news operation based in Lansing, the state capital, which is located partly in Ingham County. (The county seat, Mason, is about 15 miles away.) But the article's headline goes further, suggesting that the prosecutor is seeking the release of 90 inmates. City Pulse reported: 'Siemon - with pro-bono help from former Assistant Attorney General Ron Emery - this year plans to begin a formal review of the 90 convicted murderers serving life in prison without parole in Ingham County. And for a select few, she said she plans to seek a gubernatorial commutation that could get them back out on the streets. Siemon makes a clarification In Michigan, only the governor has the power to commute the inmates' sentences, if they are recommended for release by the state Parole Board, according to Siemon and news reports. Several days after the City Pulse story was published, Siemon released a statement saying she regretted not speaking beforehand to the families of people who could be affected by her decision to review the cases. But she said she would go ahead with her review, which would focus on cases from the 1970s and 1980s. 'I regret that I did not fully take into account the impact on victims and their families when I prematurely discussed the concept of reviewing older cases of life-without-parole,' Siemon said. 'My intent has always been that the victim's families or their representatives would get their first notice from trained professionals in our office after any review and before offering support or opposition to any application to commute a sentence. | Our ruling A Facebook post links to an article with a headline that claimed: 'Michigan prosecutor looks to release 90 convicted murderers serving life sentences.' The county prosecutor has said only that she would review the 90 cases and suggested it's likely that only a few of the inmates could be recommended to the state for possible release. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history. | Contradiction | Minnesota ranks near the middle of the states on the number of confirmed coronavirus cases per capita. So is it possible that the pandemic has left it with the highest-ever unemployment rate in the country? 'Well, we did it!' a Facebook post declares. 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history. Yesterday we surpassed the peak of the Great Depression.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It was updated a few times in subsequent days with different numbers, but was taken down after we started work on this fact check. The post is ambiguous about whether it refers to a record high for Minnesota or for all states throughout U.S. history. The post alluded to the national unemployment rate of roughly 25% during the Great Depression as a benchmark, but state records are not available for that period. And there is no officially reported unemployment data for Minnesota to back up the claim. Minnesota had low jobless rates As of May 6, the date of the Facebook post, Minnesota's most recently reported unemployment rate was for March. At that time, its jobless rate was among the lowest in the country, at 2.9%. Minnesota has since reported data for April, which reflect more pandemic-related shutdowns and show unemployment jumping to 8.1% - still second-lowest in the country behind Connecticut's 7.9%; Nevada was highest, at 28.2%. The national rate was 14.1%. There are indications that Minnesota's jobless rates could head much closer to that Depression-era mark, though at this point, that is speculative. The time lag in reporting unemployment rates means that the officially reported data don't fully reflect the trends in the number of people filing unemployment insurance claims week to week. So even as Minnesota was reporting strong jobs numbers, signs of a much greater unemployment problem were already appearing. On April 16, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on data suggesting that close to one in five Minnesota workers was unemployed or had lost work in the previous six weeks. On May 6, Minneapolis TV station Fox 9 reported that Minnesota had received 624,873 unemployment filings, amounting to 20% of the state's workforce, since mid-March. Mixing measures, that news report said the percentage rivaled unemployment rates during the Great Depression, when rates pushed towards 25%. The Facebook post attacks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a member of the state's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, as being the 'first governor to force 25% of our workforce out of jobs.' The post also refers to federal figures. But at that point, Minnesota's reported rate was nowhere near that high. 'Once we have the data, it may well turn out to be true that on May 6, Minnesota - and indeed the nation as a whole - may have had the highest unemployment rate in history, including the Great Depression,' University of Minnesota economist V.V. Chari told PolitiFact. 'My own guess is that we do have the highest unemployment rate in history now, but until we have the data, it is only an educated guess. Too early to say it quite as definitively as the poster puts it.' In 1933, during the Great Depression, the national unemployment rate reached 24.9%, although that's an annual rate, and a different measure from what is used now by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chari and Brian Hannon, an economist at the bureau, said there are no official state figures during the Depression period. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that amid the COVID-19 outbreak, 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history.' There is no official unemployment rate to back the claim. At the time of the post, on May 6, the most recently available data were for March and showed Minnesota's unemployment rate at only 2.9%. Later data for April showed Minnesota still with one of the nation's lowest jobless rates. However, during that lag, it was reported that roughly 20% of Minnesota residents, based on unemployment insurance filings, were unemployed or had lost work. The statement contains an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"100499-proof-27-minnesota_jobless_claim.png"
]
|
Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history. | Contradiction | Minnesota ranks near the middle of the states on the number of confirmed coronavirus cases per capita. So is it possible that the pandemic has left it with the highest-ever unemployment rate in the country? 'Well, we did it!' a Facebook post declares. 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history. Yesterday we surpassed the peak of the Great Depression.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It was updated a few times in subsequent days with different numbers, but was taken down after we started work on this fact check. The post is ambiguous about whether it refers to a record high for Minnesota or for all states throughout U.S. history. The post alluded to the national unemployment rate of roughly 25% during the Great Depression as a benchmark, but state records are not available for that period. And there is no officially reported unemployment data for Minnesota to back up the claim. Minnesota had low jobless rates As of May 6, the date of the Facebook post, Minnesota's most recently reported unemployment rate was for March. At that time, its jobless rate was among the lowest in the country, at 2.9%. Minnesota has since reported data for April, which reflect more pandemic-related shutdowns and show unemployment jumping to 8.1% - still second-lowest in the country behind Connecticut's 7.9%; Nevada was highest, at 28.2%. The national rate was 14.1%. There are indications that Minnesota's jobless rates could head much closer to that Depression-era mark, though at this point, that is speculative. The time lag in reporting unemployment rates means that the officially reported data don't fully reflect the trends in the number of people filing unemployment insurance claims week to week. So even as Minnesota was reporting strong jobs numbers, signs of a much greater unemployment problem were already appearing. On April 16, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on data suggesting that close to one in five Minnesota workers was unemployed or had lost work in the previous six weeks. On May 6, Minneapolis TV station Fox 9 reported that Minnesota had received 624,873 unemployment filings, amounting to 20% of the state's workforce, since mid-March. Mixing measures, that news report said the percentage rivaled unemployment rates during the Great Depression, when rates pushed towards 25%. The Facebook post attacks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a member of the state's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, as being the 'first governor to force 25% of our workforce out of jobs.' The post also refers to federal figures. But at that point, Minnesota's reported rate was nowhere near that high. 'Once we have the data, it may well turn out to be true that on May 6, Minnesota - and indeed the nation as a whole - may have had the highest unemployment rate in history, including the Great Depression,' University of Minnesota economist V.V. Chari told PolitiFact. 'My own guess is that we do have the highest unemployment rate in history now, but until we have the data, it is only an educated guess. Too early to say it quite as definitively as the poster puts it.' In 1933, during the Great Depression, the national unemployment rate reached 24.9%, although that's an annual rate, and a different measure from what is used now by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chari and Brian Hannon, an economist at the bureau, said there are no official state figures during the Depression period. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that amid the COVID-19 outbreak, 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history.' There is no official unemployment rate to back the claim. At the time of the post, on May 6, the most recently available data were for March and showed Minnesota's unemployment rate at only 2.9%. Later data for April showed Minnesota still with one of the nation's lowest jobless rates. However, during that lag, it was reported that roughly 20% of Minnesota residents, based on unemployment insurance filings, were unemployed or had lost work. The statement contains an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"100499-proof-27-minnesota_jobless_claim.png"
]
|
Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history. | Contradiction | Minnesota ranks near the middle of the states on the number of confirmed coronavirus cases per capita. So is it possible that the pandemic has left it with the highest-ever unemployment rate in the country? 'Well, we did it!' a Facebook post declares. 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history. Yesterday we surpassed the peak of the Great Depression.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It was updated a few times in subsequent days with different numbers, but was taken down after we started work on this fact check. The post is ambiguous about whether it refers to a record high for Minnesota or for all states throughout U.S. history. The post alluded to the national unemployment rate of roughly 25% during the Great Depression as a benchmark, but state records are not available for that period. And there is no officially reported unemployment data for Minnesota to back up the claim. Minnesota had low jobless rates As of May 6, the date of the Facebook post, Minnesota's most recently reported unemployment rate was for March. At that time, its jobless rate was among the lowest in the country, at 2.9%. Minnesota has since reported data for April, which reflect more pandemic-related shutdowns and show unemployment jumping to 8.1% - still second-lowest in the country behind Connecticut's 7.9%; Nevada was highest, at 28.2%. The national rate was 14.1%. There are indications that Minnesota's jobless rates could head much closer to that Depression-era mark, though at this point, that is speculative. The time lag in reporting unemployment rates means that the officially reported data don't fully reflect the trends in the number of people filing unemployment insurance claims week to week. So even as Minnesota was reporting strong jobs numbers, signs of a much greater unemployment problem were already appearing. On April 16, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on data suggesting that close to one in five Minnesota workers was unemployed or had lost work in the previous six weeks. On May 6, Minneapolis TV station Fox 9 reported that Minnesota had received 624,873 unemployment filings, amounting to 20% of the state's workforce, since mid-March. Mixing measures, that news report said the percentage rivaled unemployment rates during the Great Depression, when rates pushed towards 25%. The Facebook post attacks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a member of the state's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, as being the 'first governor to force 25% of our workforce out of jobs.' The post also refers to federal figures. But at that point, Minnesota's reported rate was nowhere near that high. 'Once we have the data, it may well turn out to be true that on May 6, Minnesota - and indeed the nation as a whole - may have had the highest unemployment rate in history, including the Great Depression,' University of Minnesota economist V.V. Chari told PolitiFact. 'My own guess is that we do have the highest unemployment rate in history now, but until we have the data, it is only an educated guess. Too early to say it quite as definitively as the poster puts it.' In 1933, during the Great Depression, the national unemployment rate reached 24.9%, although that's an annual rate, and a different measure from what is used now by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chari and Brian Hannon, an economist at the bureau, said there are no official state figures during the Depression period. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that amid the COVID-19 outbreak, 'Minnesota now has the highest unemployment rate in U.S. history.' There is no official unemployment rate to back the claim. At the time of the post, on May 6, the most recently available data were for March and showed Minnesota's unemployment rate at only 2.9%. Later data for April showed Minnesota still with one of the nation's lowest jobless rates. However, during that lag, it was reported that roughly 20% of Minnesota residents, based on unemployment insurance filings, were unemployed or had lost work. The statement contains an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"100499-proof-27-minnesota_jobless_claim.png"
]
|
'President Trump marshalled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties. | Contradiction | Vice President Mike Pence portrayed his boss President Donald Trump as a leader who reached out across the aisle to help during the pandemic. 'President Trump marshalled the full resources of the federal government and directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both parties,' Pence said during his Aug. 26 Republican National Convention speech. Clearly the federal government has provided supplies and funding to states led by both parties in response to the pandemic, and Pence himself has held regular conference calls with governors in both parties. But Pence was speaking about the actions of Trump, not his own. Pence's comments ignore Trump's multiple feuds, many times with Democratic governors, about state-federal responsibilities and pandemic response. A Trump campaign spokesperson sent us a list of dozens of tele-conferences and meetings that Trump or Pence had with governors including Democrats such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, and Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer. In March, Trump sent a letter to governors thanking them for 'stepping up to help America confront this unprecedented global pandemic.' The campaign pointed to actions by administration officials to brief governors about making available supplies, such as testing swabs, utilizing the National Guard, and reopening their state's economies. Trump argued with governors over COVID-19 supplies, tests Early in the pandemic, Trump traded barbs with governors, especially over where responsibility lay in securing medical supplies for the states. After declaring a national emergency over the health crisis on March 13, Trump directed governors to order their own ventilators, respirators and supplies, saying the federal government is 'not a shipping clerk.' Governors in both parties shot back that Trump's stance, and the lack of coordination from Washington, left states bidding against one another and the federal government for access to critical equipment. Cuomo said it was akin to competing on eBay with 50 other states and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Whitmer and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican and then chair of the National Governors Association, were among those pleading for better coordination from FEMA to ensure that supplies were distributed based on need. 'The lack of any centralized coordination is creating a counterproductive competition between states and the federal government to secure limited supplies, driving up prices and exacerbating existing shortages,' they wrote in a joint March 30 op-ed in the Washington Post. A couple days earlier, Trump said during a White House briefing that governors should be 'appreciative' toward him and the federal government. Speaking of Pence, Trump said: 'He calls all the governors. I tell him - I mean, I'm a different type of person - I say, 'Mike, don't call the governor of Washington. You're wasting your time with him. Don't call the woman in Michigan.'' On Twitter, Trump said Whitmer was 'way in over her head, she doesn't have a clue.' In April, Trump said that testing 'is a local thing' and that states should turn to commercial labs for help. After he was blasted by governors from both parties, Trump said the federal government would step up efforts to get testing supplies. Governors also called on Trump early on to enact the Defense Production Act, a law that gives the president authority to expedite the supply of materials for national defense, in order to ramp up production of personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing supplies. While the president did eventually invoke the act to produce ventilators and medical equipment, he delayed efforts to do so and did it sparingly. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson called for him to broaden its use. Trump's justification for slow-rolling the act was that he didn't want the government to intervene in the private sector. 'You know, we're a country not based on nationalizing our business,' Trump said at a coronavirus task force press briefing on March 22. 'Call a person over in Venezuela, ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out? Not too well.' In April, Trump said that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, had reopened Georgia 'too soon.' In May, he criticized Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, for keeping parts of his state closed that Trump said were 'barely affected.' Trump said in mid April that it was up to him - not the governors - about when to re-open states on lockdown. Some governors bypassed the federal government to work together Frustrated with the responses from the Trump administration, some governors teamed up with each other to get needed supplies. In May, a coalition of governors from seven Northeastern states, including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware, teamed up to buy personal protective equipment and ventilators and to create a re-unified reopening strategy. As late as July, some governors were calling on the feds for help and not getting what they needed. There were shortages of testing supplies, as well as personal protective gear. Washington state asked for 4.2 million N-95 respirators. It got a bit under 500,000. It asked for about 300,000 gowns. It got about 160,000. On Aug. 18, a bipartisan group of governors - five Democrats and five Republicans - announced they would be teaming up with the Rockefeller Foundation to create a national testing strategy in the absence of federal action. The 10 states are Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, Rhode Island and Virginia. Their goal is to buy and deploy 5 million COVID-19 antigen tests. Feuds between Trump administration and states continue The Trump administration sought to pressure states to reopen in-person schools. In July, Trump threatened to cut off funding if schools didn't reopen. This summer, the Trump administration reduced the federal share of National Guard assistance to the states to help with pandemic response, despite pleas from governors in both parties. An Aug. 3 memo said that the federal government would no longer continue to pay for 100% of the tab for most states and that it would be reduced to 75% as of Aug. 21. And when the CDC unveiled new testing guidelines that downplayed the need to test people who don't show symptoms - about 40% of those infected - Cuomo and California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that they won't follow it. Asymptomatic people are thought to be significant spreaders of the virus. Both governors at times praised certain responses by the Trump administration to help their states respond to the pandemic. | Our ruling Pence said, 'President Trump marshalled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties.' Trump and top administration officials have communicated with governors of both parties for months in meetings, phone calls and written communication. But Pence's comment ignores that Trump has feuded with governors over state-federal responsibilities, supplies and shutdown or reopen policies. He's also suggested a lesser role for the federal government, and said that the handling of COVID-19 should be left to the states. We rate this claim Mostly False. Loading... | [
"100519-proof-30-aca0953ff0841e76a973156538a9a8d1.jpg"
]
|
'President Trump marshalled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties. | Contradiction | Vice President Mike Pence portrayed his boss President Donald Trump as a leader who reached out across the aisle to help during the pandemic. 'President Trump marshalled the full resources of the federal government and directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both parties,' Pence said during his Aug. 26 Republican National Convention speech. Clearly the federal government has provided supplies and funding to states led by both parties in response to the pandemic, and Pence himself has held regular conference calls with governors in both parties. But Pence was speaking about the actions of Trump, not his own. Pence's comments ignore Trump's multiple feuds, many times with Democratic governors, about state-federal responsibilities and pandemic response. A Trump campaign spokesperson sent us a list of dozens of tele-conferences and meetings that Trump or Pence had with governors including Democrats such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, and Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer. In March, Trump sent a letter to governors thanking them for 'stepping up to help America confront this unprecedented global pandemic.' The campaign pointed to actions by administration officials to brief governors about making available supplies, such as testing swabs, utilizing the National Guard, and reopening their state's economies. Trump argued with governors over COVID-19 supplies, tests Early in the pandemic, Trump traded barbs with governors, especially over where responsibility lay in securing medical supplies for the states. After declaring a national emergency over the health crisis on March 13, Trump directed governors to order their own ventilators, respirators and supplies, saying the federal government is 'not a shipping clerk.' Governors in both parties shot back that Trump's stance, and the lack of coordination from Washington, left states bidding against one another and the federal government for access to critical equipment. Cuomo said it was akin to competing on eBay with 50 other states and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Whitmer and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican and then chair of the National Governors Association, were among those pleading for better coordination from FEMA to ensure that supplies were distributed based on need. 'The lack of any centralized coordination is creating a counterproductive competition between states and the federal government to secure limited supplies, driving up prices and exacerbating existing shortages,' they wrote in a joint March 30 op-ed in the Washington Post. A couple days earlier, Trump said during a White House briefing that governors should be 'appreciative' toward him and the federal government. Speaking of Pence, Trump said: 'He calls all the governors. I tell him - I mean, I'm a different type of person - I say, 'Mike, don't call the governor of Washington. You're wasting your time with him. Don't call the woman in Michigan.'' On Twitter, Trump said Whitmer was 'way in over her head, she doesn't have a clue.' In April, Trump said that testing 'is a local thing' and that states should turn to commercial labs for help. After he was blasted by governors from both parties, Trump said the federal government would step up efforts to get testing supplies. Governors also called on Trump early on to enact the Defense Production Act, a law that gives the president authority to expedite the supply of materials for national defense, in order to ramp up production of personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing supplies. While the president did eventually invoke the act to produce ventilators and medical equipment, he delayed efforts to do so and did it sparingly. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson called for him to broaden its use. Trump's justification for slow-rolling the act was that he didn't want the government to intervene in the private sector. 'You know, we're a country not based on nationalizing our business,' Trump said at a coronavirus task force press briefing on March 22. 'Call a person over in Venezuela, ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out? Not too well.' In April, Trump said that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, had reopened Georgia 'too soon.' In May, he criticized Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, for keeping parts of his state closed that Trump said were 'barely affected.' Trump said in mid April that it was up to him - not the governors - about when to re-open states on lockdown. Some governors bypassed the federal government to work together Frustrated with the responses from the Trump administration, some governors teamed up with each other to get needed supplies. In May, a coalition of governors from seven Northeastern states, including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware, teamed up to buy personal protective equipment and ventilators and to create a re-unified reopening strategy. As late as July, some governors were calling on the feds for help and not getting what they needed. There were shortages of testing supplies, as well as personal protective gear. Washington state asked for 4.2 million N-95 respirators. It got a bit under 500,000. It asked for about 300,000 gowns. It got about 160,000. On Aug. 18, a bipartisan group of governors - five Democrats and five Republicans - announced they would be teaming up with the Rockefeller Foundation to create a national testing strategy in the absence of federal action. The 10 states are Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, Rhode Island and Virginia. Their goal is to buy and deploy 5 million COVID-19 antigen tests. Feuds between Trump administration and states continue The Trump administration sought to pressure states to reopen in-person schools. In July, Trump threatened to cut off funding if schools didn't reopen. This summer, the Trump administration reduced the federal share of National Guard assistance to the states to help with pandemic response, despite pleas from governors in both parties. An Aug. 3 memo said that the federal government would no longer continue to pay for 100% of the tab for most states and that it would be reduced to 75% as of Aug. 21. And when the CDC unveiled new testing guidelines that downplayed the need to test people who don't show symptoms - about 40% of those infected - Cuomo and California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that they won't follow it. Asymptomatic people are thought to be significant spreaders of the virus. Both governors at times praised certain responses by the Trump administration to help their states respond to the pandemic. | Our ruling Pence said, 'President Trump marshalled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties.' Trump and top administration officials have communicated with governors of both parties for months in meetings, phone calls and written communication. But Pence's comment ignores that Trump has feuded with governors over state-federal responsibilities, supplies and shutdown or reopen policies. He's also suggested a lesser role for the federal government, and said that the handling of COVID-19 should be left to the states. We rate this claim Mostly False. Loading... | [
"100519-proof-30-aca0953ff0841e76a973156538a9a8d1.jpg"
]
|
'President Trump marshalled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties. | Contradiction | Vice President Mike Pence portrayed his boss President Donald Trump as a leader who reached out across the aisle to help during the pandemic. 'President Trump marshalled the full resources of the federal government and directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both parties,' Pence said during his Aug. 26 Republican National Convention speech. Clearly the federal government has provided supplies and funding to states led by both parties in response to the pandemic, and Pence himself has held regular conference calls with governors in both parties. But Pence was speaking about the actions of Trump, not his own. Pence's comments ignore Trump's multiple feuds, many times with Democratic governors, about state-federal responsibilities and pandemic response. A Trump campaign spokesperson sent us a list of dozens of tele-conferences and meetings that Trump or Pence had with governors including Democrats such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, and Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer. In March, Trump sent a letter to governors thanking them for 'stepping up to help America confront this unprecedented global pandemic.' The campaign pointed to actions by administration officials to brief governors about making available supplies, such as testing swabs, utilizing the National Guard, and reopening their state's economies. Trump argued with governors over COVID-19 supplies, tests Early in the pandemic, Trump traded barbs with governors, especially over where responsibility lay in securing medical supplies for the states. After declaring a national emergency over the health crisis on March 13, Trump directed governors to order their own ventilators, respirators and supplies, saying the federal government is 'not a shipping clerk.' Governors in both parties shot back that Trump's stance, and the lack of coordination from Washington, left states bidding against one another and the federal government for access to critical equipment. Cuomo said it was akin to competing on eBay with 50 other states and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Whitmer and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican and then chair of the National Governors Association, were among those pleading for better coordination from FEMA to ensure that supplies were distributed based on need. 'The lack of any centralized coordination is creating a counterproductive competition between states and the federal government to secure limited supplies, driving up prices and exacerbating existing shortages,' they wrote in a joint March 30 op-ed in the Washington Post. A couple days earlier, Trump said during a White House briefing that governors should be 'appreciative' toward him and the federal government. Speaking of Pence, Trump said: 'He calls all the governors. I tell him - I mean, I'm a different type of person - I say, 'Mike, don't call the governor of Washington. You're wasting your time with him. Don't call the woman in Michigan.'' On Twitter, Trump said Whitmer was 'way in over her head, she doesn't have a clue.' In April, Trump said that testing 'is a local thing' and that states should turn to commercial labs for help. After he was blasted by governors from both parties, Trump said the federal government would step up efforts to get testing supplies. Governors also called on Trump early on to enact the Defense Production Act, a law that gives the president authority to expedite the supply of materials for national defense, in order to ramp up production of personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing supplies. While the president did eventually invoke the act to produce ventilators and medical equipment, he delayed efforts to do so and did it sparingly. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson called for him to broaden its use. Trump's justification for slow-rolling the act was that he didn't want the government to intervene in the private sector. 'You know, we're a country not based on nationalizing our business,' Trump said at a coronavirus task force press briefing on March 22. 'Call a person over in Venezuela, ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out? Not too well.' In April, Trump said that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, had reopened Georgia 'too soon.' In May, he criticized Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, for keeping parts of his state closed that Trump said were 'barely affected.' Trump said in mid April that it was up to him - not the governors - about when to re-open states on lockdown. Some governors bypassed the federal government to work together Frustrated with the responses from the Trump administration, some governors teamed up with each other to get needed supplies. In May, a coalition of governors from seven Northeastern states, including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware, teamed up to buy personal protective equipment and ventilators and to create a re-unified reopening strategy. As late as July, some governors were calling on the feds for help and not getting what they needed. There were shortages of testing supplies, as well as personal protective gear. Washington state asked for 4.2 million N-95 respirators. It got a bit under 500,000. It asked for about 300,000 gowns. It got about 160,000. On Aug. 18, a bipartisan group of governors - five Democrats and five Republicans - announced they would be teaming up with the Rockefeller Foundation to create a national testing strategy in the absence of federal action. The 10 states are Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, Rhode Island and Virginia. Their goal is to buy and deploy 5 million COVID-19 antigen tests. Feuds between Trump administration and states continue The Trump administration sought to pressure states to reopen in-person schools. In July, Trump threatened to cut off funding if schools didn't reopen. This summer, the Trump administration reduced the federal share of National Guard assistance to the states to help with pandemic response, despite pleas from governors in both parties. An Aug. 3 memo said that the federal government would no longer continue to pay for 100% of the tab for most states and that it would be reduced to 75% as of Aug. 21. And when the CDC unveiled new testing guidelines that downplayed the need to test people who don't show symptoms - about 40% of those infected - Cuomo and California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that they won't follow it. Asymptomatic people are thought to be significant spreaders of the virus. Both governors at times praised certain responses by the Trump administration to help their states respond to the pandemic. | Our ruling Pence said, 'President Trump marshalled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties.' Trump and top administration officials have communicated with governors of both parties for months in meetings, phone calls and written communication. But Pence's comment ignores that Trump has feuded with governors over state-federal responsibilities, supplies and shutdown or reopen policies. He's also suggested a lesser role for the federal government, and said that the handling of COVID-19 should be left to the states. We rate this claim Mostly False. Loading... | [
"100519-proof-30-aca0953ff0841e76a973156538a9a8d1.jpg"
]
|
'Biden orders dishonorable discharge for 46% of troops who refuse vaccine. | Contradiction | A new rumor on social media falsely claimed that President Joe Biden commanded the military to dishonorably discharge service members who reject the Pentagon's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. That's not true. In reality, Biden gave no such direction, and legal experts said he wouldn't have the authority to do so. But various posts claiming otherwise garnered thousands of engagements on Instagram. 'Biden orders dishonorable discharge for 46% of troops who refuse vaccine,' said the Instagram posts, which shared screenshots of a Sept. 23 headline from a blog site called 'Sandra Rose.' The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Asked whether Biden had issued such a directive, the White House referred PolitiFact to the Pentagon, which offered a simple rebuttal: 'Regarding the claim on Instagram, that is false.' Instagram posts like this one from Sept. 27 falsely claimed that President Joe Biden ordered dishonorable discharges for all service members who refused to comply with the Pentagon's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Biden doesn't have authority to order dishonorable discharges Several branches of the military separately confirmed that they had not received a White House order like the Instagram posts described. 'President Biden has not ordered the Coast Guard to dishonorably discharge Coast Guard members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine,' said Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Kroll, chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, in one such statement. There are several types of discharge service members can face, military experts said. From best to worst, the options include honorable discharges; general discharges under honorable conditions; other than honorable discharges; bad conduct discharges; and dishonorable discharges. The first three occur at the administrative level. But the latter two must be handed down by a court martial, experts said, so Biden does not have authority to order them. 'Under decades-old federal law, a dishonorable discharge can only be given to a service member who has been convicted by a general court-martial,' said Dwight Stirling, founder and CEO of the Center for Law and Military Policy, a think tank, and a lecturer in law at the University of Southern California. Richard Rosen, a law professor and director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, said those who shared the Instagram posts may have been confused by reports that the Biden administration opposed a recent legislative proposal that would prohibit military leaders from dishonorably discharging service members who rebuff the vaccine mandate. In response to PolitiFact's inquiry, the account behind one Instagram post, which got nearly 5,000 likes, pointed to an article from Fox News about exactly that. The Office of Management and Budget said in a Sept. 21 statement of administration policy that the administration 'strongly oppose(d)' the provision, which was written as an amendment to the defense spending bill for the 2022 fiscal year. The statement that such legislation 'would detract from readiness and limit a commander's options for enforcing good order and discipline when a service member fails to obey a lawful order to receive a vaccination.' But the administration's opposition to such legislation is 'not the same thing as the president directing a dishonorable discharge,' Rosen said. The branches of the military set up different timelines for getting troops vaccinated. According to the Military Times, the Army's active-duty troops have until Dec. 15, while the Air Force and Space Force set Nov. 2 as their deadline, and the Marine Corps and Navy picked Nov. 28. Service members can request exemptions for medical and religious reasons. How each branch will handle those who refuse the shots remains to be seen, but some branches have telegraphed their intentions. The Army, for example, has said that while hesitant soldiers will initially receive counseling, 'continued failure to comply could result in administrative or non-judicial punishment - to include relief of duties or discharge.' 'Taking the vaccine is a requirement, and again, I'll just leave it at that,' Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told Congress Sept. 28. It is legally possible for service members who refuse the vaccine to be dishonorably discharged, Rosen said, though it would require a trial, with all the rights attendant to a criminal proceeding. Stirling said a dishonorable discharge is akin to a felony conviction, and that it's more likely these troops would face an administrative response, which could include a written reprimand, a comment in a performance evaluation, a demotion, or one of the less severe forms of discharge. Vaccination rates are higher in military The Instagram post's claim about '46% of troops' refusing the vaccine came from the Sandra Rose blog post, which said that 600,000 out of the more than 1.3 million active-duty service members had 'declined to roll up their sleeves.' Those numbers aren't accurate. According to June data from the Pentagon, the U.S. employs almost 1.38 million active-duty troops, plus nearly 800,000 National Guard and reserves. It's roughly 2.18 million in total. The Pentagon data shows that as of Sept. 29, 1.28 million active-duty, National Guard and reserve troops had been fully vaccinated, and 384,824 had been partially vaccinated. That means that about 76% were fully or partially vaccinated, and about 59% were fully vaccinated. It also means that closer to 24% had received no vaccine. Maj. Charlie Dietz, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, told PolitiFact that as of Oct. 1, about 95% of active-duty troops had been fully or partially vaccinated. Dietz said the military's vaccination rates have increased significantly following the mandate, and that he was unaware of anyone being discharged for refusing to comply. | Our ruling Instagram posts said, 'Biden orders dishonorable discharge for 46% of troops who refuse vaccine.' There's no evidence that Biden has given any such direction, and experts on military law said he wouldn't have the legal authority to do so as president. The percentage of active-duty military service members who have been partially or fully vaccinated against COVID-19 is about 95%, and the deadlines are a month or more away. We rate this post False. | [
"100521-proof-34-cb70c8c45cbd601c14764ede3828f3c0.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.