claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'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"
]
|
'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"
]
|
'Ticketmaster is planning mandatory COVID vaccine identification for concert attendance. | Contradiction | The coronavirus has caused the cancellation of myriad concerts across the world and Ticketmaster has started preparing for future events. Online, some people are warning that the company will require a COVID-19 vaccine. 'Ticketmaster is planning mandatory COVID vaccine identification for concert attendance,' one Instagram post said. 'We told you it was coming and now it's here. Young healthy people DO NOT need a vaccine for a virus with a 99% recovery rate and Ticketmaster is not your physician.' Ticketmaster said the claim is not true. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On Nov. 11, Billboard published what it described as an exclusive story with the headline 'How Ticketmaster plans to check your vaccine status for concerts.' Ticketmaster, Billboard reported, has been working 'on a framework for post-pandemic fan safety that uses smart phones to verify fans' vaccination status or whether they've tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 27 hour window.' The plans are still in development, the story said, but the piece lays out how it could work. 'After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert,' according to the story, which inspired a wave of social media posts about mandatory vaccinations. The following day, Ticketmaster tweeted a clarification. 'We know there's been some incorrect information being reported around safety/entry requirements and want to ensure everyone has all the facts,' the company said. 'There is absolutely no requirement from Ticketmaster mandating vaccines/testing.' Ticketmaster linked to a section on its website detailing COVID screening requirements, where it said it's 'not forcing anyone to do anything. Just exploring the ability to enhance our existing digital ticket capabilities to offer solutions for event organizers that could include testing and vaccine information with 3rd party health providers.' Ticketmaster, which sells tickets for some event organizers, doesn't have the power to make policies concerning COVID-19 safety requirements, the company said. Any such requirements 'always would be up to the discretion of the event organizer, based on their preference and local health guidelines.' We rate this Instagram post False. | We rate this Instagram post False. | []
|
Says Donald Trump indicted Amy Coney Barrett. | Contradiction | A blog post about a supposed indictment against Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is spreading widely on social media, but the story is simply 'deep state' fan fiction with wild claims attributed to an anonymous source. The post says that on his last full day in office, then-President Donald Trump co-authored 'a flurry of indictments,' including one that charged Barrett with 'high crimes and misdemeanors against America and its people.' 'Our source said Trump spent days pondering whether to formally charge the 49-year-old mother of seven, but concluded that Barrett's betrayal to both him and the U.S. Constitution could not go unpunished,' the post says. The post goes on to make other false claims, such as that President Joe Biden stole the presidential election and that Trump is expected to unseal the indictment against Barrett 'once he returns to power before the end of the year.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is nothing to support the allegations in this blog post. Prosecutors seek indictments, not presidents, and they're issued by grand juries - again, not by presidents. The indictment of a Supreme Court justice would draw major news coverage, but none exists to support the claim that Barrett faces criminal charges. We searched for Barrett's name in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records site, better known as PACER, a database of federal court cases. There are no criminal cases against the Supreme Court justice, much less one that includes the charges detailed in the blog post. That's because it's baseless. We rate it Pants on Fire. | We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says Jon Ossoff is 'a socialist. | Contradiction | In one of the two Georgia runoffs that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate, GOP incumbent David Perdue used the S word - socialism - to brand his opponent, Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue's attack came in an interview on a TV show hosted by Mike Huckabee, the Republican former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate. 'Philosophically, where do you and (Ossoff) differ significantly? What's the main difference between you?' Huckabee asked. 'Well, it's very simple,' Perdue replied. 'He's a socialist.' Perdue has used the term repeatedly about Ossoff, although more often he refers to what he claims is the documentary filmmaker's support of a socialist agenda. President Donald Trump labeled Joe Biden a socialist - a claim we rated False, but one that some believe helped Trump win Florida in the Nov. 3 election. Much of the evidence Perdue cites about Ossoff's policy positions is inaccurate. And even if what he cited were correct, it doesn't amount to Ossoff being a socialist. What is socialism? Socialism has support among a significant number of Americans, particularly those who see it as promoting equality and more social services. A September 2020 Hill-HarrisX poll found that slightly more Democratic voters view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Strictly speaking, however, the most narrow definition of socialism refers to 'governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.' Ossoff has not stated support for such government control. When Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speak of socialism, they are referring to expanding the social programs already available, along with potentially higher tax rates to pay for them. But Ossoff opposes Sanders' Medicare for All and Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks and articles about the Georgia runoffs Perdue's evidence Perdue's campaign said Ossoff's 'socialist agenda' includes support for defunding the police, 'government-controlled health care,' the Green New Deal and 'no borders.' Leaving aside whether any of those positions amounts to socialism, Ossoff has said he opposes defunding the police; opposes Medicare for All and supports private insurance; opposes the Green New Deal; and opposes abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while supporting 'strong border security.' Perdue's campaign also said Ossoff supports sanctuary cities, higher taxes and changing the makeup of the Senate to 'favor Democrats.' None of those positions is socialism. Ossoff has said, 'I don't think it's the role of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law,' but has not stated support for sanctuary cities. He 'supports lower taxes for all but the wealthiest Americans.' Ossoff does support statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are seen as more likely to elect Democratic senators. Perdue's campaign also said Ossoff is a socialist because of support from Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and 'California liberals.' But Ossoff doesn't support Sanders' Medicare for All, under which a single, national health insurance program would cover everyone who lives in the United States; or Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, which is centered on climate change, but incorporates everything from racial justice to labor union policy. 'It's somewhat difficult to classify Ossoff ideologically, as he has never held elective office and has a relatively brief history in the public spotlight,' said Zachary Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. 'With that caveat in mind, his campaign statements and debate performances are consistent with a middle-of-the-road Democrat.' Jeffrey Lazarus, a political science professor at Georgia State University, also described Ossoff as mainstream. 'Forget for a moment the massive levels of misunderstanding that pervade discourse around the word socialism. Looking just at Ossoff's policy positions, they're pretty mainstream Democratic policy positions,' Lazarus said. 'As far as I can tell, Ossoff isn't calling for any policy that is particularly left-wing.' | Our ruling Perdue said Ossoff is a socialist. As evidence, Purdue said Ossoff supports policies that Ossoff actually does not support, such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Those policies don't constitute socialism. Ossoff is not a socialist. Perdue's statement is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100576-proof-10-b26fed03f833a26b0d7b64ae0065a251.jpg"
]
|
Says Jon Ossoff is 'a socialist. | Contradiction | In one of the two Georgia runoffs that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate, GOP incumbent David Perdue used the S word - socialism - to brand his opponent, Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue's attack came in an interview on a TV show hosted by Mike Huckabee, the Republican former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate. 'Philosophically, where do you and (Ossoff) differ significantly? What's the main difference between you?' Huckabee asked. 'Well, it's very simple,' Perdue replied. 'He's a socialist.' Perdue has used the term repeatedly about Ossoff, although more often he refers to what he claims is the documentary filmmaker's support of a socialist agenda. President Donald Trump labeled Joe Biden a socialist - a claim we rated False, but one that some believe helped Trump win Florida in the Nov. 3 election. Much of the evidence Perdue cites about Ossoff's policy positions is inaccurate. And even if what he cited were correct, it doesn't amount to Ossoff being a socialist. What is socialism? Socialism has support among a significant number of Americans, particularly those who see it as promoting equality and more social services. A September 2020 Hill-HarrisX poll found that slightly more Democratic voters view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Strictly speaking, however, the most narrow definition of socialism refers to 'governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.' Ossoff has not stated support for such government control. When Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speak of socialism, they are referring to expanding the social programs already available, along with potentially higher tax rates to pay for them. But Ossoff opposes Sanders' Medicare for All and Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks and articles about the Georgia runoffs Perdue's evidence Perdue's campaign said Ossoff's 'socialist agenda' includes support for defunding the police, 'government-controlled health care,' the Green New Deal and 'no borders.' Leaving aside whether any of those positions amounts to socialism, Ossoff has said he opposes defunding the police; opposes Medicare for All and supports private insurance; opposes the Green New Deal; and opposes abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while supporting 'strong border security.' Perdue's campaign also said Ossoff supports sanctuary cities, higher taxes and changing the makeup of the Senate to 'favor Democrats.' None of those positions is socialism. Ossoff has said, 'I don't think it's the role of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law,' but has not stated support for sanctuary cities. He 'supports lower taxes for all but the wealthiest Americans.' Ossoff does support statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are seen as more likely to elect Democratic senators. Perdue's campaign also said Ossoff is a socialist because of support from Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and 'California liberals.' But Ossoff doesn't support Sanders' Medicare for All, under which a single, national health insurance program would cover everyone who lives in the United States; or Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, which is centered on climate change, but incorporates everything from racial justice to labor union policy. 'It's somewhat difficult to classify Ossoff ideologically, as he has never held elective office and has a relatively brief history in the public spotlight,' said Zachary Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. 'With that caveat in mind, his campaign statements and debate performances are consistent with a middle-of-the-road Democrat.' Jeffrey Lazarus, a political science professor at Georgia State University, also described Ossoff as mainstream. 'Forget for a moment the massive levels of misunderstanding that pervade discourse around the word socialism. Looking just at Ossoff's policy positions, they're pretty mainstream Democratic policy positions,' Lazarus said. 'As far as I can tell, Ossoff isn't calling for any policy that is particularly left-wing.' | Our ruling Perdue said Ossoff is a socialist. As evidence, Purdue said Ossoff supports policies that Ossoff actually does not support, such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Those policies don't constitute socialism. Ossoff is not a socialist. Perdue's statement is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100576-proof-10-b26fed03f833a26b0d7b64ae0065a251.jpg"
]
|
Says Jon Ossoff is 'a socialist. | Contradiction | In one of the two Georgia runoffs that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate, GOP incumbent David Perdue used the S word - socialism - to brand his opponent, Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue's attack came in an interview on a TV show hosted by Mike Huckabee, the Republican former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate. 'Philosophically, where do you and (Ossoff) differ significantly? What's the main difference between you?' Huckabee asked. 'Well, it's very simple,' Perdue replied. 'He's a socialist.' Perdue has used the term repeatedly about Ossoff, although more often he refers to what he claims is the documentary filmmaker's support of a socialist agenda. President Donald Trump labeled Joe Biden a socialist - a claim we rated False, but one that some believe helped Trump win Florida in the Nov. 3 election. Much of the evidence Perdue cites about Ossoff's policy positions is inaccurate. And even if what he cited were correct, it doesn't amount to Ossoff being a socialist. What is socialism? Socialism has support among a significant number of Americans, particularly those who see it as promoting equality and more social services. A September 2020 Hill-HarrisX poll found that slightly more Democratic voters view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Strictly speaking, however, the most narrow definition of socialism refers to 'governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.' Ossoff has not stated support for such government control. When Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speak of socialism, they are referring to expanding the social programs already available, along with potentially higher tax rates to pay for them. But Ossoff opposes Sanders' Medicare for All and Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks and articles about the Georgia runoffs Perdue's evidence Perdue's campaign said Ossoff's 'socialist agenda' includes support for defunding the police, 'government-controlled health care,' the Green New Deal and 'no borders.' Leaving aside whether any of those positions amounts to socialism, Ossoff has said he opposes defunding the police; opposes Medicare for All and supports private insurance; opposes the Green New Deal; and opposes abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while supporting 'strong border security.' Perdue's campaign also said Ossoff supports sanctuary cities, higher taxes and changing the makeup of the Senate to 'favor Democrats.' None of those positions is socialism. Ossoff has said, 'I don't think it's the role of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law,' but has not stated support for sanctuary cities. He 'supports lower taxes for all but the wealthiest Americans.' Ossoff does support statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are seen as more likely to elect Democratic senators. Perdue's campaign also said Ossoff is a socialist because of support from Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and 'California liberals.' But Ossoff doesn't support Sanders' Medicare for All, under which a single, national health insurance program would cover everyone who lives in the United States; or Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, which is centered on climate change, but incorporates everything from racial justice to labor union policy. 'It's somewhat difficult to classify Ossoff ideologically, as he has never held elective office and has a relatively brief history in the public spotlight,' said Zachary Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. 'With that caveat in mind, his campaign statements and debate performances are consistent with a middle-of-the-road Democrat.' Jeffrey Lazarus, a political science professor at Georgia State University, also described Ossoff as mainstream. 'Forget for a moment the massive levels of misunderstanding that pervade discourse around the word socialism. Looking just at Ossoff's policy positions, they're pretty mainstream Democratic policy positions,' Lazarus said. 'As far as I can tell, Ossoff isn't calling for any policy that is particularly left-wing.' | Our ruling Perdue said Ossoff is a socialist. As evidence, Purdue said Ossoff supports policies that Ossoff actually does not support, such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Those policies don't constitute socialism. Ossoff is not a socialist. Perdue's statement is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100576-proof-10-b26fed03f833a26b0d7b64ae0065a251.jpg"
]
|
Says Donald Trump 'voted twice' in the Nov. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump, who has bashed voting by mail, showed up in person at an early voting site in Palm Beach County to vote Oct. 24. But some posts on social media suggest he voted twice - once by mail, and once in person. 'Did this slip by anyone else because not me. He voted twice. He is committing voter fraud. Oh Irony! How he mocks thee!' stated an Oct. 24 Facebook post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post includes a link to an Aug. 19 NPR story about how Trump voted by mail in Florida's primary. The post also includes a link to a TV news report about Trump voting in person. Wendy Sartory Link, the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, was at the library early voting site when Trump cast a ballot in person. 'I can absolutely confirm that he did not vote twice in November,' she told PolitiFact the next morning. While Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail, he used it himself twice earlier this year. A representative picked up ballots for Trump from the elections office, which is allowed under Florida law. Link confirmed that Trump voted using that method for the presidential preference primary in March and the state primary in August. Trump is registered to vote using his Mar-A-Lago address. Leading up to the Nov. 3 election, reporters were eager to report if he planned to vote in person. At PolitiFact, wer regularly checked the Palm Beach County website to look up Trump and saw no request for a mail ballot. The Miami Herald reported Oct. 19 that Trump had not yet requested a mail ballot, although he still had time. A couple days later reporters from the Wall Street Journal and Politico tweeted that Trump planned to vote in person at an early voting site. Election officials have procedures to prevent a voter from casting a ballot by mail and then voting in person. In Palm Beach County, workers check in voters at polling sites using an electronic poll book. If a voter has already voted by mail, the voter won't be allowed to vote a second time. If a voter casts a ballot by mail, and then goes to vote in person before that completed mail in ballot has been received by the county, the mail-in ballot will eventually be rejected, Ashley Houlihan, general counsel for the Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections, previously told PolitiFact. RELATED: How to make sure your ballot is counted this fall We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"100582-proof-33-1f53aaa34e743ef9808f2ab05895b83a.jpg"
]
|
Says Donald Trump 'voted twice' in the Nov. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump, who has bashed voting by mail, showed up in person at an early voting site in Palm Beach County to vote Oct. 24. But some posts on social media suggest he voted twice - once by mail, and once in person. 'Did this slip by anyone else because not me. He voted twice. He is committing voter fraud. Oh Irony! How he mocks thee!' stated an Oct. 24 Facebook post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post includes a link to an Aug. 19 NPR story about how Trump voted by mail in Florida's primary. The post also includes a link to a TV news report about Trump voting in person. Wendy Sartory Link, the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, was at the library early voting site when Trump cast a ballot in person. 'I can absolutely confirm that he did not vote twice in November,' she told PolitiFact the next morning. While Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail, he used it himself twice earlier this year. A representative picked up ballots for Trump from the elections office, which is allowed under Florida law. Link confirmed that Trump voted using that method for the presidential preference primary in March and the state primary in August. Trump is registered to vote using his Mar-A-Lago address. Leading up to the Nov. 3 election, reporters were eager to report if he planned to vote in person. At PolitiFact, wer regularly checked the Palm Beach County website to look up Trump and saw no request for a mail ballot. The Miami Herald reported Oct. 19 that Trump had not yet requested a mail ballot, although he still had time. A couple days later reporters from the Wall Street Journal and Politico tweeted that Trump planned to vote in person at an early voting site. Election officials have procedures to prevent a voter from casting a ballot by mail and then voting in person. In Palm Beach County, workers check in voters at polling sites using an electronic poll book. If a voter has already voted by mail, the voter won't be allowed to vote a second time. If a voter casts a ballot by mail, and then goes to vote in person before that completed mail in ballot has been received by the county, the mail-in ballot will eventually be rejected, Ashley Houlihan, general counsel for the Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections, previously told PolitiFact. RELATED: How to make sure your ballot is counted this fall We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"100582-proof-33-1f53aaa34e743ef9808f2ab05895b83a.jpg"
]
|
Says Donald Trump 'voted twice' in the Nov. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump, who has bashed voting by mail, showed up in person at an early voting site in Palm Beach County to vote Oct. 24. But some posts on social media suggest he voted twice - once by mail, and once in person. 'Did this slip by anyone else because not me. He voted twice. He is committing voter fraud. Oh Irony! How he mocks thee!' stated an Oct. 24 Facebook post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post includes a link to an Aug. 19 NPR story about how Trump voted by mail in Florida's primary. The post also includes a link to a TV news report about Trump voting in person. Wendy Sartory Link, the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, was at the library early voting site when Trump cast a ballot in person. 'I can absolutely confirm that he did not vote twice in November,' she told PolitiFact the next morning. While Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail, he used it himself twice earlier this year. A representative picked up ballots for Trump from the elections office, which is allowed under Florida law. Link confirmed that Trump voted using that method for the presidential preference primary in March and the state primary in August. Trump is registered to vote using his Mar-A-Lago address. Leading up to the Nov. 3 election, reporters were eager to report if he planned to vote in person. At PolitiFact, wer regularly checked the Palm Beach County website to look up Trump and saw no request for a mail ballot. The Miami Herald reported Oct. 19 that Trump had not yet requested a mail ballot, although he still had time. A couple days later reporters from the Wall Street Journal and Politico tweeted that Trump planned to vote in person at an early voting site. Election officials have procedures to prevent a voter from casting a ballot by mail and then voting in person. In Palm Beach County, workers check in voters at polling sites using an electronic poll book. If a voter has already voted by mail, the voter won't be allowed to vote a second time. If a voter casts a ballot by mail, and then goes to vote in person before that completed mail in ballot has been received by the county, the mail-in ballot will eventually be rejected, Ashley Houlihan, general counsel for the Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections, previously told PolitiFact. RELATED: How to make sure your ballot is counted this fall We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"100582-proof-33-1f53aaa34e743ef9808f2ab05895b83a.jpg"
]
|
Says Gorilla Glue tweeted, 'Do not use our products on your f------ hair. | Contradiction | A Louisiana woman who used Gorilla Glue on her hair drew scorn from some corners of the internet, but not from the adhesive company. A recent image spreading on social media would have you think otherwise. 'We never thought we'd have to say this, but do not use our products on your f------ hair,' reads what looks like a screenshot of a Feb. 7 tweet from a verified Gorilla Glue account that's 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.) That's because this isn't the real Gorilla Glue account. The Twitter handle in the screenshot being shared online is @Gorilla Glue, with a space between 'Gorilla' and 'Glue' that's not actually possible in handles on the social media platform. The actual Gorilla Glue handle is @GorillaGlue with no space. And while the company account acknowledged the plight of Tessica Brown, the Louisiana woman who used the glue as hairspray, it didn't make the statement that appears in the Facebook post. 'We are aware of the situation and we are very sorry to hear about the unfortunate incident that Miss Brown experienced using our Spray Adhesive on her hair,' the account tweeted on Feb. 8. 'This is a unique situation because this product is not indicated for use in or on hair as it is considered permanent. Our spray adhesive states in the warning label, 'do not swallow. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing...'' The statement ended by wishing Brown well and saying Gorilla Glue was glad to see she had received medical treatment for her injuries. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Photo shows a Chinese restaurant sign that says 'F--- DeSantis. | Contradiction | The Phoenix Koi Chinese restaurant has a pretty good lunch deal if you've been vaccinated. 'Lunch: $150 (get 95% off with vacc. card!),' reads the yellow marquee below the restaurant's sign before administering a different kind of jab to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis: 'F*** DeSantis.' A post sharing this image was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the sign is fake, and customizable. You can 'make your own Chinese restaurant sign' on the website atom.smasher.org. We made one. The restaurant is called 'PolitiFact,' and the marquee is much less hostile to DeSantis. It says: 'Fact-checking rules, misinformation drools.' We rate claims that this sign is authentic Pants on Fire! | We rate claims that this sign is authentic Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says 'EIGHT Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting-aged adults living there. | Contradiction | One day before the Iowa caucuses, a conservative activist started making claims on Twitter about alleged voter fraud. 'It's been revealed that EIGHT Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting-aged adults living there,' tweeted Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, Feb. 2. 'Don't let voter fraud steal the 2020 election.' The tweet was flagged by VineSight, an organization that uses artificial intelligence to surface potential misinformation, and also appears on Facebook. The allegations from Kirk and another conservative organization aim to stir up concerns about voter fraud with a questionable methodology that leads to unsubstantiated conclusions. On Caucus Day, Iowa election officials issued public statements denouncing their numbers and the narrative. The current data released by Iowa election officials don't support Kirk's tweet. Iowa disputes report Kirk's viral tweet makes the same claim as a Feb. 3 report published by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group. The Judicial Watch report says 'eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than their eligible voting-age population.' Two of them, Johnson and Scott counties, are the locations of Davenport and Iowa City, respectively. The report was based on its analysis of data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. 'Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections and Iowa needs to undertake a serious effort to address its voting rolls,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in the news release. RELATED: We fact-checked the Democrats' closing push in Iowa before the caucuses Iowa officials refuted the report. A Feb. 3 news release from Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said his office's data 'shows this information to be false.' 'It's unfortunate this organization continues to put out inaccurate data regarding voter registration, and it's especially disconcerting they chose the day of the Iowa Caucus to do this,' Pate said in the statement. 'My office has told the organization, and others who have made similar claims, that their data regarding Iowa is deeply flawed and their false claims erode voter confidence in elections.' We reached out to Kirk and Judicial Watch for comment, but neither has responded with one. It appears they were using old voter registration numbers.. An 'apples-to-oranges measure' We took a look at the most recent voter registration and population data from Iowa's government and the Census Bureau. The numbers don't support what Kirk said, and experts say comparing them is flawed. Among the counties identified by Judicial Watch, none have more active registered voters than adults. For example, Scott County - the largest county included in the Judicial Watch story - has an estimated population of 131,961 people ages 18 and older, according to 2018 data from the Census's American Community Survey. According to the Iowa secretary of state, there are 127,737 total voter registrations, 115,393 of which are active. Judicial Watch's story looked at 'total registrations,' which includes inactive voters. In Iowa, inactive voters are those that have not responded to notices from the state asking them to verify their registration and residence. Only one county, Lyon, has more total registered voters than adults: 8,490 to 8,430. But that data is from 2018. The Iowa secretary of state's office says 8,117 of voters in Lyon County are active. Either way, experts say comparing voter rolls and Census estimates isn't an accurate measurement of registration rates. 'That's an apples-to-oranges measure. They measure different things, at different times, with different types of levels of certainty,' said Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, in an email. 'And so it's really bad science to claim that a disconnect between those two numbers means that there's fraud.' Even if there were more registered voters than voting-age adults in some Iowa counties, experts told us it would not amount to voter fraud. 'For there to be voter fraud in connection to bloated voter rolls, you'd have to see people going to the polling places and see them voting in places of people who have moved or died,' said Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. 'Not only would that be a difficult thing to do ... you'd have to do this on a wide enough scale to sway an election without being able to verify how the people you've paid to do this have voted.' Voter fraud remains rare in American elections. A database maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation has documented 17 confirmed instances of voter fraud in Iowa dating back to 2011. | Our ruling A tweet from Charlie Kirk claims that 'EIGHT Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting-aged adults living there.' Voter registration data and a statement from Iowa's secretary of state, as well as population estimates from the Census Bureau, refute that claim. And experts say comparing voter data to population estimates isn't a good measure of registration rates in the first place. Kirk's tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100636-proof-38-1df7c7f9dcb382f179702378ae9c573c.jpg"
]
|
Says 'EIGHT Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting-aged adults living there. | Contradiction | One day before the Iowa caucuses, a conservative activist started making claims on Twitter about alleged voter fraud. 'It's been revealed that EIGHT Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting-aged adults living there,' tweeted Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, Feb. 2. 'Don't let voter fraud steal the 2020 election.' The tweet was flagged by VineSight, an organization that uses artificial intelligence to surface potential misinformation, and also appears on Facebook. The allegations from Kirk and another conservative organization aim to stir up concerns about voter fraud with a questionable methodology that leads to unsubstantiated conclusions. On Caucus Day, Iowa election officials issued public statements denouncing their numbers and the narrative. The current data released by Iowa election officials don't support Kirk's tweet. Iowa disputes report Kirk's viral tweet makes the same claim as a Feb. 3 report published by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group. The Judicial Watch report says 'eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than their eligible voting-age population.' Two of them, Johnson and Scott counties, are the locations of Davenport and Iowa City, respectively. The report was based on its analysis of data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. 'Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections and Iowa needs to undertake a serious effort to address its voting rolls,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in the news release. RELATED: We fact-checked the Democrats' closing push in Iowa before the caucuses Iowa officials refuted the report. A Feb. 3 news release from Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said his office's data 'shows this information to be false.' 'It's unfortunate this organization continues to put out inaccurate data regarding voter registration, and it's especially disconcerting they chose the day of the Iowa Caucus to do this,' Pate said in the statement. 'My office has told the organization, and others who have made similar claims, that their data regarding Iowa is deeply flawed and their false claims erode voter confidence in elections.' We reached out to Kirk and Judicial Watch for comment, but neither has responded with one. It appears they were using old voter registration numbers.. An 'apples-to-oranges measure' We took a look at the most recent voter registration and population data from Iowa's government and the Census Bureau. The numbers don't support what Kirk said, and experts say comparing them is flawed. Among the counties identified by Judicial Watch, none have more active registered voters than adults. For example, Scott County - the largest county included in the Judicial Watch story - has an estimated population of 131,961 people ages 18 and older, according to 2018 data from the Census's American Community Survey. According to the Iowa secretary of state, there are 127,737 total voter registrations, 115,393 of which are active. Judicial Watch's story looked at 'total registrations,' which includes inactive voters. In Iowa, inactive voters are those that have not responded to notices from the state asking them to verify their registration and residence. Only one county, Lyon, has more total registered voters than adults: 8,490 to 8,430. But that data is from 2018. The Iowa secretary of state's office says 8,117 of voters in Lyon County are active. Either way, experts say comparing voter rolls and Census estimates isn't an accurate measurement of registration rates. 'That's an apples-to-oranges measure. They measure different things, at different times, with different types of levels of certainty,' said Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, in an email. 'And so it's really bad science to claim that a disconnect between those two numbers means that there's fraud.' Even if there were more registered voters than voting-age adults in some Iowa counties, experts told us it would not amount to voter fraud. 'For there to be voter fraud in connection to bloated voter rolls, you'd have to see people going to the polling places and see them voting in places of people who have moved or died,' said Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. 'Not only would that be a difficult thing to do ... you'd have to do this on a wide enough scale to sway an election without being able to verify how the people you've paid to do this have voted.' Voter fraud remains rare in American elections. A database maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation has documented 17 confirmed instances of voter fraud in Iowa dating back to 2011. | Our ruling A tweet from Charlie Kirk claims that 'EIGHT Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting-aged adults living there.' Voter registration data and a statement from Iowa's secretary of state, as well as population estimates from the Census Bureau, refute that claim. And experts say comparing voter data to population estimates isn't a good measure of registration rates in the first place. Kirk's tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"100636-proof-38-1df7c7f9dcb382f179702378ae9c573c.jpg"
]
|
Says Rep. Pramila Jayapal was not wearing a mask in Congress during the U.S. Capitol mob. | Contradiction | Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., blamed her Republican colleagues after she and two other House Democrats tested positive for COVID-19 in the days following the U.S. Capitol mob, which forced lawmakers into close quarters as they took shelter from the violence. 'I just received a positive COVID-19 test result after being locked down in a secured room at the Capitol where several Republicans not only cruelly refused to wear a mask but recklessly mocked colleagues and staff who offered them one,' Jayapal wrote in a Jan. 12 tweet. Several Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has supported the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, were seen on video refusing to wear masks while members of both chambers waited out the siege from the secured room. But some social media users say photo and video evidence shows that Jayapal also didn't wear a mask as the rioters breached the building and halted congressional proceedings. 'There's pictures and videos of (Jayapal) not wearing a mask that day,' says one tweet reposted on Jan. 12 to Facebook, which shows an image of Jayapal from the day of the riot. Posts sharing the same photograph on Facebook and other platforms were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image - a screenshot from a longer video taken as the mob moved inside the Capitol - purports to show Jayapal maskless in the balcony of the House chambers. But the image is missing context. Jayapal said in a subsequent tweet and later in a Jan. 13 interview on ABC's 'The View' that she had taken off her face mask to put on a gas mask. 'We were then under siege,' Jayapal said, explaining that she was trapped in the gallery with about 12 other lawmakers. 'The Capitol police told us at that point to get off of our chairs, to get on the floor, to take off our masks, and to actually be ready to put on our gas masks. So if you look at those pictures, I am holding in my right hand a gas mask.' 'We were specifically told to take off our masks, because you can't breathe within the gas mask if you have the other mask on,' she continued. 'So all of us had been wearing masks. We took off our masks. We held our gas masks. And we were down on the floor.' The full video footage from which the photograph was captured supports Jayapal's explanation. As Snopes reported, the video shows Jayapal with her gas mask in hand. The video shows another person, seated on the floor a row above Jayapal, with the gas mask already on. 'You can see the gas mask in her right hand in the photo,' said Jayapal spokesperson Chris Evans. Evans said Jayapal tested negative for COVID-19 on Jan. 5, a day before the Capitol siege. Jayapal criticized Republicans for refusing masks while lawmakers were 'locked down in a secured room at the Capitol.' The out-of-context photograph shows Jayapal in the House chambers, before she had been ushered to that secured location. | Our ruling A Facebook post says a video screenshot shows that Jayapal was not wearing a mask in Congress during the Capitol mob. The post is missing critical context: Jayapal and other lawmakers taking shelter in the balcony of the House chambers were instructed to take off their masks and prepare to put on gas masks. We rate this post Mostly False. | [
"100637-proof-13-f343df93412caa1796bae63c26ccea8a.jpg"
]
|
Says Rep. Pramila Jayapal was not wearing a mask in Congress during the U.S. Capitol mob. | Contradiction | Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., blamed her Republican colleagues after she and two other House Democrats tested positive for COVID-19 in the days following the U.S. Capitol mob, which forced lawmakers into close quarters as they took shelter from the violence. 'I just received a positive COVID-19 test result after being locked down in a secured room at the Capitol where several Republicans not only cruelly refused to wear a mask but recklessly mocked colleagues and staff who offered them one,' Jayapal wrote in a Jan. 12 tweet. Several Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has supported the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, were seen on video refusing to wear masks while members of both chambers waited out the siege from the secured room. But some social media users say photo and video evidence shows that Jayapal also didn't wear a mask as the rioters breached the building and halted congressional proceedings. 'There's pictures and videos of (Jayapal) not wearing a mask that day,' says one tweet reposted on Jan. 12 to Facebook, which shows an image of Jayapal from the day of the riot. Posts sharing the same photograph on Facebook and other platforms were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image - a screenshot from a longer video taken as the mob moved inside the Capitol - purports to show Jayapal maskless in the balcony of the House chambers. But the image is missing context. Jayapal said in a subsequent tweet and later in a Jan. 13 interview on ABC's 'The View' that she had taken off her face mask to put on a gas mask. 'We were then under siege,' Jayapal said, explaining that she was trapped in the gallery with about 12 other lawmakers. 'The Capitol police told us at that point to get off of our chairs, to get on the floor, to take off our masks, and to actually be ready to put on our gas masks. So if you look at those pictures, I am holding in my right hand a gas mask.' 'We were specifically told to take off our masks, because you can't breathe within the gas mask if you have the other mask on,' she continued. 'So all of us had been wearing masks. We took off our masks. We held our gas masks. And we were down on the floor.' The full video footage from which the photograph was captured supports Jayapal's explanation. As Snopes reported, the video shows Jayapal with her gas mask in hand. The video shows another person, seated on the floor a row above Jayapal, with the gas mask already on. 'You can see the gas mask in her right hand in the photo,' said Jayapal spokesperson Chris Evans. Evans said Jayapal tested negative for COVID-19 on Jan. 5, a day before the Capitol siege. Jayapal criticized Republicans for refusing masks while lawmakers were 'locked down in a secured room at the Capitol.' The out-of-context photograph shows Jayapal in the House chambers, before she had been ushered to that secured location. | Our ruling A Facebook post says a video screenshot shows that Jayapal was not wearing a mask in Congress during the Capitol mob. The post is missing critical context: Jayapal and other lawmakers taking shelter in the balcony of the House chambers were instructed to take off their masks and prepare to put on gas masks. We rate this post Mostly False. | [
"100637-proof-13-f343df93412caa1796bae63c26ccea8a.jpg"
]
|
Says Rep. Pramila Jayapal was not wearing a mask in Congress during the U.S. Capitol mob. | Contradiction | Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., blamed her Republican colleagues after she and two other House Democrats tested positive for COVID-19 in the days following the U.S. Capitol mob, which forced lawmakers into close quarters as they took shelter from the violence. 'I just received a positive COVID-19 test result after being locked down in a secured room at the Capitol where several Republicans not only cruelly refused to wear a mask but recklessly mocked colleagues and staff who offered them one,' Jayapal wrote in a Jan. 12 tweet. Several Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has supported the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, were seen on video refusing to wear masks while members of both chambers waited out the siege from the secured room. But some social media users say photo and video evidence shows that Jayapal also didn't wear a mask as the rioters breached the building and halted congressional proceedings. 'There's pictures and videos of (Jayapal) not wearing a mask that day,' says one tweet reposted on Jan. 12 to Facebook, which shows an image of Jayapal from the day of the riot. Posts sharing the same photograph on Facebook and other platforms were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image - a screenshot from a longer video taken as the mob moved inside the Capitol - purports to show Jayapal maskless in the balcony of the House chambers. But the image is missing context. Jayapal said in a subsequent tweet and later in a Jan. 13 interview on ABC's 'The View' that she had taken off her face mask to put on a gas mask. 'We were then under siege,' Jayapal said, explaining that she was trapped in the gallery with about 12 other lawmakers. 'The Capitol police told us at that point to get off of our chairs, to get on the floor, to take off our masks, and to actually be ready to put on our gas masks. So if you look at those pictures, I am holding in my right hand a gas mask.' 'We were specifically told to take off our masks, because you can't breathe within the gas mask if you have the other mask on,' she continued. 'So all of us had been wearing masks. We took off our masks. We held our gas masks. And we were down on the floor.' The full video footage from which the photograph was captured supports Jayapal's explanation. As Snopes reported, the video shows Jayapal with her gas mask in hand. The video shows another person, seated on the floor a row above Jayapal, with the gas mask already on. 'You can see the gas mask in her right hand in the photo,' said Jayapal spokesperson Chris Evans. Evans said Jayapal tested negative for COVID-19 on Jan. 5, a day before the Capitol siege. Jayapal criticized Republicans for refusing masks while lawmakers were 'locked down in a secured room at the Capitol.' The out-of-context photograph shows Jayapal in the House chambers, before she had been ushered to that secured location. | Our ruling A Facebook post says a video screenshot shows that Jayapal was not wearing a mask in Congress during the Capitol mob. The post is missing critical context: Jayapal and other lawmakers taking shelter in the balcony of the House chambers were instructed to take off their masks and prepare to put on gas masks. We rate this post Mostly False. | [
"100637-proof-13-f343df93412caa1796bae63c26ccea8a.jpg"
]
|
Says COVID-19 relief bill 'provides more funding to foreign governments and to American arts centers, than to the American people. | Contradiction | Shortly after lawmakers agreed on sending $600 stimulus checks to many Americans, Facebook users said the COVID-19 relief bill put foreign interests and the arts above the needs of the American people. 'Every American left and right should be calling for a #VETO of this stimulus 'deal'- which provides MORE funding to foreign governments and to American arts centers, than to the American people,' said a Dec. 21 post. The post included a picture listing domestic entities and foreign countries appropriated millions if not billions of dollars, juxtaposed with just $600 for the 'American people.' Under domestic funding, for instance, it listed the 'Kennedy Center - $26,400,000.' The post mentioned at least eight foreign countries receiving aid, including Egypt, Sudan, and Ukraine. According to the post, Egypt would get $1.3 billion. 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 is right that Congress appropriated funds for foreign aid and for American arts centers, and Americans are free to disagree that taxpayer money is allotted in this way. But it's wrong to suggest that such funding is in the COVID-19 relief bill. On Dec. 21, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress passed a $2.3 trillion spending package: a roughly $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill - consisting of 12 different bills to fund the government during fiscal year 2021 - and a separate, approximately $900 billion bill specifically for COVID-19 relief. Lawmakers also passed several other smaller bills. It's the $1.4 trillion part of the package that included funding for U.S. policies and priorities within the country and abroad. The Facebook post conflates provisions of the COVID-19 relief bill with provisions in the omnibus spending bill. COVID-19 relief bill It's been about nine months since a $2 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was signed into law by President Donald Trump. Some members of Congress were frustrated that legislative leaders released the new bill - 5,593 pages long - just hours before they were expected to vote on it. Some people argue that Americans should be getting more than $600 in direct payments, and the Facebook posts echo that sentiment. At the same time, the posts don't mention the other forms of relief that will be available to some Americans, including unemployment assistance. Overall, the COVID-19 relief bill totals more than $900 billion. Americans who meet specific income criteria are expected to get $600. The relief bill includes about $166 billion for the stimulus checks, according to a breakdown from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Here's the group's breakdown of what else is in the bill: • $325 billion in aid to small businesses (includes Paycheck Protection Program) • $120 billion for unemployment assistance ($300 a week for 11 weeks) • $82 billion for education (such as K-12 education grants) • $56 billion for health care (includes funding for states to do COVID-19 testing) • $45 billion for transportation (includes payroll support program for airline workers) • $83 billion for other spending (such as rental assistance, nutrition programs) • $40 billion for other tax cuts (such as the Extend and Expand Employee Retention Tax Credit) Funding for foreign countries, arts is in other spending bill The Facebook post says that lawmakers provided aid to at least eight foreign countries in the COVID-19 relief package, including $1.3 billion to Egypt. That's not part of the COVID-19 relief bill. The omnibus spending bill, under the header 'Foreign Military Financing program,' says that $1.3 billion is to remain available until Sept. 30, 2022, and should be made available for assistance for Egypt. It stipulates several conditions for the disbursement of those funds. For instance, $225 million will be withheld until the secretary of state certifies and reports to Congress that the Egyptian government has taken steps to improve the rule of law, democratic institutions, and human rights. Appropriation bills usually include foreign aid, commonly for military and humanitarian aid, said Steve Ellis, president of the nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Our reporting has shown that foreign aid historically represents about 1% of the overall federal budget. Polling has shown that average Americans assume the U.S. spends about 31% of its budget on foreign aid. The omnibus spending part of the package passed by Congress also calls for $26.4 million to remain available until Sept. 30, 2022 for the John F. Kennedy Center's operation, maintenance, and security. The Facebook post flags that appropriation, but omits that it's part of the omnibus spending bill, not part of the COVID-19 relief bill. The 'domestic funding' and 'foreign countries' funding in the post are part of the omnibus spending bill, not the COVID-19 relief bill. The total of the 'foreign aid' and 'domestic funding' mentioned in the Facebook post is not greater than the funding in the COVID-19 relief bill. No pay raise for Congress Other Facebook posts also claimed, wrongly, that Congress snuck a pay raise for its members into the new legislation. It did not. The same claim was made about the CARES Act in March. As we've reported, congressional pay raises are fixed to the Employment Cost Index, which measures changes in wages. Pay increases are automatic unless Congress votes them down, which it has done repeatedly since 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service. Section 7 of the legislation says: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal year 2021.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that a COVID-19 relief bill 'provides more funding to foreign governments and to American arts centers, than to the American people.' The post conflates provisions of the $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill with provisions of a separate, $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill. Both were part of a broader $2.3 trillion package approved by Congress. The overall spending bill included funding for American arts centers and foreign aid, but that funding was not included in the COVID-19 relief bill. It was part of the $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. PolitiFact staff writer Bill McCarthy contributed to this report. | []
|
Says COVID-19 relief bill 'provides more funding to foreign governments and to American arts centers, than to the American people. | Contradiction | Shortly after lawmakers agreed on sending $600 stimulus checks to many Americans, Facebook users said the COVID-19 relief bill put foreign interests and the arts above the needs of the American people. 'Every American left and right should be calling for a #VETO of this stimulus 'deal'- which provides MORE funding to foreign governments and to American arts centers, than to the American people,' said a Dec. 21 post. The post included a picture listing domestic entities and foreign countries appropriated millions if not billions of dollars, juxtaposed with just $600 for the 'American people.' Under domestic funding, for instance, it listed the 'Kennedy Center - $26,400,000.' The post mentioned at least eight foreign countries receiving aid, including Egypt, Sudan, and Ukraine. According to the post, Egypt would get $1.3 billion. 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 is right that Congress appropriated funds for foreign aid and for American arts centers, and Americans are free to disagree that taxpayer money is allotted in this way. But it's wrong to suggest that such funding is in the COVID-19 relief bill. On Dec. 21, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress passed a $2.3 trillion spending package: a roughly $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill - consisting of 12 different bills to fund the government during fiscal year 2021 - and a separate, approximately $900 billion bill specifically for COVID-19 relief. Lawmakers also passed several other smaller bills. It's the $1.4 trillion part of the package that included funding for U.S. policies and priorities within the country and abroad. The Facebook post conflates provisions of the COVID-19 relief bill with provisions in the omnibus spending bill. COVID-19 relief bill It's been about nine months since a $2 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was signed into law by President Donald Trump. Some members of Congress were frustrated that legislative leaders released the new bill - 5,593 pages long - just hours before they were expected to vote on it. Some people argue that Americans should be getting more than $600 in direct payments, and the Facebook posts echo that sentiment. At the same time, the posts don't mention the other forms of relief that will be available to some Americans, including unemployment assistance. Overall, the COVID-19 relief bill totals more than $900 billion. Americans who meet specific income criteria are expected to get $600. The relief bill includes about $166 billion for the stimulus checks, according to a breakdown from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Here's the group's breakdown of what else is in the bill: • $325 billion in aid to small businesses (includes Paycheck Protection Program) • $120 billion for unemployment assistance ($300 a week for 11 weeks) • $82 billion for education (such as K-12 education grants) • $56 billion for health care (includes funding for states to do COVID-19 testing) • $45 billion for transportation (includes payroll support program for airline workers) • $83 billion for other spending (such as rental assistance, nutrition programs) • $40 billion for other tax cuts (such as the Extend and Expand Employee Retention Tax Credit) Funding for foreign countries, arts is in other spending bill The Facebook post says that lawmakers provided aid to at least eight foreign countries in the COVID-19 relief package, including $1.3 billion to Egypt. That's not part of the COVID-19 relief bill. The omnibus spending bill, under the header 'Foreign Military Financing program,' says that $1.3 billion is to remain available until Sept. 30, 2022, and should be made available for assistance for Egypt. It stipulates several conditions for the disbursement of those funds. For instance, $225 million will be withheld until the secretary of state certifies and reports to Congress that the Egyptian government has taken steps to improve the rule of law, democratic institutions, and human rights. Appropriation bills usually include foreign aid, commonly for military and humanitarian aid, said Steve Ellis, president of the nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Our reporting has shown that foreign aid historically represents about 1% of the overall federal budget. Polling has shown that average Americans assume the U.S. spends about 31% of its budget on foreign aid. The omnibus spending part of the package passed by Congress also calls for $26.4 million to remain available until Sept. 30, 2022 for the John F. Kennedy Center's operation, maintenance, and security. The Facebook post flags that appropriation, but omits that it's part of the omnibus spending bill, not part of the COVID-19 relief bill. The 'domestic funding' and 'foreign countries' funding in the post are part of the omnibus spending bill, not the COVID-19 relief bill. The total of the 'foreign aid' and 'domestic funding' mentioned in the Facebook post is not greater than the funding in the COVID-19 relief bill. No pay raise for Congress Other Facebook posts also claimed, wrongly, that Congress snuck a pay raise for its members into the new legislation. It did not. The same claim was made about the CARES Act in March. As we've reported, congressional pay raises are fixed to the Employment Cost Index, which measures changes in wages. Pay increases are automatic unless Congress votes them down, which it has done repeatedly since 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service. Section 7 of the legislation says: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal year 2021.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that a COVID-19 relief bill 'provides more funding to foreign governments and to American arts centers, than to the American people.' The post conflates provisions of the $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill with provisions of a separate, $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill. Both were part of a broader $2.3 trillion package approved by Congress. The overall spending bill included funding for American arts centers and foreign aid, but that funding was not included in the COVID-19 relief bill. It was part of the $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. PolitiFact staff writer Bill McCarthy contributed to this report. | []
|
'In a very real sense, (Oklahoma has) flattened the curve. ... The number of cases in Oklahoma - it's declined precipitously. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump is receiving criticism for his decision to restart in-person, indoor rallies with an event in Tulsa on June 20. During a White House roundtable on June 15, Vice President Mike Pence defended Trump's decision by praising Oklahoma's response to the coronavirus pandemic. At a discussion of issues affecting older Americans, Pence said, 'The president and I have both spoken to (Oklahoma) Gov. Kevin Stitt in the last several days and even earlier today. And Oklahoma has really been in the forefront of our efforts to slow the spread. And in a very real sense, they've flattened the curve. And today, their hospital capacity is abundant. The number of cases in Oklahoma - it's declined precipitously, and we feel very confident going forward with the rally this coming weekend.' However, Pence's remarks represent an unduly optimistic reading of Oklahoma's actual coronavirus data. (The Trump campaign and the White House did not respond to inquiries.) The state opened some businesses on April 24 and others on May 1. We looked at the raw data for Oklahoma from the Covid Tracking Project. The following chart shows both the daily number of new, confirmed cases in Oklahoma and the seven-day rolling average, which smooths out day-to-day variations in the data. (For instance, weekends often show artificially low totals because offices are closed.) The strongest evidence for Pence's characterization comes in the early part of the period. From early March to early April, the daily case count skyrocketed, but then it eased and remained more or less in check through the end of May. This fits the pattern of 'flattening the curve,' a term that gained currency early in the pandemic to describe a hoped-for phenomenon by which Americans would stay at home to stop the virus' spread, thus keeping new infections from overwhelming the hospital system. However, Pence overstated the case. First, it's incorrect to say that infections in Oklahoma 'declined precipitously.' As the chart shows, it was, at best, a modest decline between early April and the end of May. It could be more accurately described as a plateau. Second, any 'flattening the curve' period is old news. Over the most recent week, the number of new cases has increased every day and produced a spike beyond anything previously seen in Oklahoma. The seven-day rolling average for new infections is now more than double where it stood at the end of May, just before the spike began. 'It looks from the data that the number of cases is on the rise, and rising quite steeply,' said Nicole Gatto, associate professor in the School of Community and Global Health at Claremont Graduate University. Tara C. Smith, a professor of epidemiology at Kent State University, agreed. 'The seven-day average doesn't look great for the most recent part of June,' Smith said. 'They had slowed new cases for a while, but the trend now seems to be reversing.' Equally important, the recent spike does not appear to be traceable to a big surge in testing. Here's a chart of the seven-day rolling average of daily tests in Oklahoma: The number of tests conducted has generally risen over time. But the number of tests actually fell during the period when the number of new infections was spiking. | Our ruling Pence said, 'In a very real sense, (Oklahoma has) flattened the curve. ... The number of cases in Oklahoma - it's declined precipitously.' This observation is outdated and inaccurate. In June, Oklahoma's daily caseload has risen consistently, and to levels higher than at any point in the pandemic. We rate the statement False. | [
"100660-proof-29-230c1263a632f7980c94142c84032cc3.jpg"
]
|
Says professional soccer player Christian Eriksen received the Pfizer vaccine days before he collapsed during a game. | Contradiction | Christian Eriksen, a 29-year-old Danish soccer player, suddenly collapsed on the pitch during a June 12 European Championship match between the Denmark and Finland national teams. Tournament organizers and Denmark's soccer federation later reported that Eriksen suffered cardiac arrest and was awake and responsive at the hospital. It didn't take long after Eriksen's collapse for misinformation about his COVID-19 vaccination status to start circulating online. An Instagram post shows a screenshot of a tweet that says: 'Christian Eriksen, the Danish player who suddenly collapsed on the pitch, plays for Inter Milan. The chief medic and cardiologist of that Italian team confirmed on an Italian radio station that Eriksen has received the Pfizer vaccine on May 31.' The tweet, now deleted, came from Luboš Motl, a Czech physicist and blogger who has shared false information about COVID-19 and vaccines. Other tweets claimed that the station the chief medic spoke to was Radio Sportiva. The post isn't accurate. Inter Milan's director said Eriksen hadn't received any COVID-19 vaccine prior to his collapse, or contracted the disease in the past. Radio Sportiva denied that it made any such report. 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.) Eriksen collapsed suddenly in the 43rd minute of the Group B opener between Denmark and Finland while he was running near the left touchline after a Denmark throw-in. His teammates gathered around him before he was carried off on a stretcher. The game was paused for over an hour. A young athlete experiencing cardiac arrest is not common, but it's also not unprecedented. The rumor about Eriksen came amid reports of a small but higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation - called myocarditis and pericarditis - developing in mostly young people after they received doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced June 10 that it will convene an emergency meeting on June 18 to discuss a possible link between the condition and the vaccines. Other health organizations, like the European Medicines Agency, are also investigating. But Eriksen's collapse appears unrelated. Motl had to take down his tweet after Inter Milan's director Giuseppe Marotta told Italian sports TV channel Rai Sport that Eriksen hadn't received any COVID-19 vaccine. Radio Sportiva, meanwhile, denied that anyone on the team's medical staff said otherwise. 'The information reported in the tweet mentioned is false,' the radio station wrote in a June 13 tweet. We have never reported any opinion from the Inter medical staff regarding Christian Eriksen's condition.' The Inter Milan team doctor, Piero Volpi, told Italian sports newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport that Eriksen will undergo thorough examinations over the next few days. 'But there has never been an episode that even remotely hinted at a problem,' Volpi added. Sanjay Sharma, Eriksen's cardiologist while he played for former club Tottenham Hotspur, said that some players may have had mild or asymptomatic coronavirus infections, which could have resulted in 'scarring' of the heart, but that Eriksen had no prior heart issues during his time with the Premier League. Eriksen signed with Inter Milan in January 2020. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Eriksen collapsed on the field from cardiac arrest days after receiving Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The director of Inter Milan, the Italian professional team Eriksen plays for, said the footballer hadn't received any of the vaccines. He is currently undergoing testing to pinpoint the cause. We rate this claim False. | [
"100671-proof-21-6e28e69bbb07d67ad54d0e2bcccda2f7.jpg",
"100671-proof-28-eriksen_collapse_tweet.jpeg"
]
|
Says professional soccer player Christian Eriksen received the Pfizer vaccine days before he collapsed during a game. | Contradiction | Christian Eriksen, a 29-year-old Danish soccer player, suddenly collapsed on the pitch during a June 12 European Championship match between the Denmark and Finland national teams. Tournament organizers and Denmark's soccer federation later reported that Eriksen suffered cardiac arrest and was awake and responsive at the hospital. It didn't take long after Eriksen's collapse for misinformation about his COVID-19 vaccination status to start circulating online. An Instagram post shows a screenshot of a tweet that says: 'Christian Eriksen, the Danish player who suddenly collapsed on the pitch, plays for Inter Milan. The chief medic and cardiologist of that Italian team confirmed on an Italian radio station that Eriksen has received the Pfizer vaccine on May 31.' The tweet, now deleted, came from Luboš Motl, a Czech physicist and blogger who has shared false information about COVID-19 and vaccines. Other tweets claimed that the station the chief medic spoke to was Radio Sportiva. The post isn't accurate. Inter Milan's director said Eriksen hadn't received any COVID-19 vaccine prior to his collapse, or contracted the disease in the past. Radio Sportiva denied that it made any such report. 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.) Eriksen collapsed suddenly in the 43rd minute of the Group B opener between Denmark and Finland while he was running near the left touchline after a Denmark throw-in. His teammates gathered around him before he was carried off on a stretcher. The game was paused for over an hour. A young athlete experiencing cardiac arrest is not common, but it's also not unprecedented. The rumor about Eriksen came amid reports of a small but higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation - called myocarditis and pericarditis - developing in mostly young people after they received doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced June 10 that it will convene an emergency meeting on June 18 to discuss a possible link between the condition and the vaccines. Other health organizations, like the European Medicines Agency, are also investigating. But Eriksen's collapse appears unrelated. Motl had to take down his tweet after Inter Milan's director Giuseppe Marotta told Italian sports TV channel Rai Sport that Eriksen hadn't received any COVID-19 vaccine. Radio Sportiva, meanwhile, denied that anyone on the team's medical staff said otherwise. 'The information reported in the tweet mentioned is false,' the radio station wrote in a June 13 tweet. We have never reported any opinion from the Inter medical staff regarding Christian Eriksen's condition.' The Inter Milan team doctor, Piero Volpi, told Italian sports newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport that Eriksen will undergo thorough examinations over the next few days. 'But there has never been an episode that even remotely hinted at a problem,' Volpi added. Sanjay Sharma, Eriksen's cardiologist while he played for former club Tottenham Hotspur, said that some players may have had mild or asymptomatic coronavirus infections, which could have resulted in 'scarring' of the heart, but that Eriksen had no prior heart issues during his time with the Premier League. Eriksen signed with Inter Milan in January 2020. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Eriksen collapsed on the field from cardiac arrest days after receiving Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The director of Inter Milan, the Italian professional team Eriksen plays for, said the footballer hadn't received any of the vaccines. He is currently undergoing testing to pinpoint the cause. We rate this claim False. | [
"100671-proof-21-6e28e69bbb07d67ad54d0e2bcccda2f7.jpg",
"100671-proof-28-eriksen_collapse_tweet.jpeg"
]
|
Says professional soccer player Christian Eriksen received the Pfizer vaccine days before he collapsed during a game. | Contradiction | Christian Eriksen, a 29-year-old Danish soccer player, suddenly collapsed on the pitch during a June 12 European Championship match between the Denmark and Finland national teams. Tournament organizers and Denmark's soccer federation later reported that Eriksen suffered cardiac arrest and was awake and responsive at the hospital. It didn't take long after Eriksen's collapse for misinformation about his COVID-19 vaccination status to start circulating online. An Instagram post shows a screenshot of a tweet that says: 'Christian Eriksen, the Danish player who suddenly collapsed on the pitch, plays for Inter Milan. The chief medic and cardiologist of that Italian team confirmed on an Italian radio station that Eriksen has received the Pfizer vaccine on May 31.' The tweet, now deleted, came from Luboš Motl, a Czech physicist and blogger who has shared false information about COVID-19 and vaccines. Other tweets claimed that the station the chief medic spoke to was Radio Sportiva. The post isn't accurate. Inter Milan's director said Eriksen hadn't received any COVID-19 vaccine prior to his collapse, or contracted the disease in the past. Radio Sportiva denied that it made any such report. 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.) Eriksen collapsed suddenly in the 43rd minute of the Group B opener between Denmark and Finland while he was running near the left touchline after a Denmark throw-in. His teammates gathered around him before he was carried off on a stretcher. The game was paused for over an hour. A young athlete experiencing cardiac arrest is not common, but it's also not unprecedented. The rumor about Eriksen came amid reports of a small but higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation - called myocarditis and pericarditis - developing in mostly young people after they received doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced June 10 that it will convene an emergency meeting on June 18 to discuss a possible link between the condition and the vaccines. Other health organizations, like the European Medicines Agency, are also investigating. But Eriksen's collapse appears unrelated. Motl had to take down his tweet after Inter Milan's director Giuseppe Marotta told Italian sports TV channel Rai Sport that Eriksen hadn't received any COVID-19 vaccine. Radio Sportiva, meanwhile, denied that anyone on the team's medical staff said otherwise. 'The information reported in the tweet mentioned is false,' the radio station wrote in a June 13 tweet. We have never reported any opinion from the Inter medical staff regarding Christian Eriksen's condition.' The Inter Milan team doctor, Piero Volpi, told Italian sports newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport that Eriksen will undergo thorough examinations over the next few days. 'But there has never been an episode that even remotely hinted at a problem,' Volpi added. Sanjay Sharma, Eriksen's cardiologist while he played for former club Tottenham Hotspur, said that some players may have had mild or asymptomatic coronavirus infections, which could have resulted in 'scarring' of the heart, but that Eriksen had no prior heart issues during his time with the Premier League. Eriksen signed with Inter Milan in January 2020. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Eriksen collapsed on the field from cardiac arrest days after receiving Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The director of Inter Milan, the Italian professional team Eriksen plays for, said the footballer hadn't received any of the vaccines. He is currently undergoing testing to pinpoint the cause. We rate this claim False. | [
"100671-proof-21-6e28e69bbb07d67ad54d0e2bcccda2f7.jpg",
"100671-proof-28-eriksen_collapse_tweet.jpeg"
]
|
Ron Johnson didn't 'show up' for a day of impeachment hearings. | Contradiction | Social media hosted no shortage of debates amid former President Donald Trump's second impeachment hearing, but a Feb 12, 2021, exchange centering around U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, was particularly unexpected. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin, said Johnson was a no-show on what turned out to be the second-last day of the proceedings. 'Hey @SenRonJohnson, were you too busy fighting with YouTube fighting over your crackpot theories on Covid? Do your damn job and show up,' Pocan tweeted about 9 a.m., referencing Johnson's ongoing feud over YouTube removing a video Johnson posted of COVID-related testimony from his Senate committee. It prompted an expected dose of Twitter outrage, with posters condemning Johnson and saying he shouldn't be able to vote if he didn't show up. But later that day Johnson spokesman Ben Voelkel said that was a lie and told Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Patrick Marley that Johnson had been in attendance throughout the trial. So who's right? The background Pinning down attendance is tricky since the hearing took place in the Senate Chamber, but that wasn't the only way for senators to watch the proceedings. The Senate adopted a resolution allowing senators to leave and watch from the upstairs gallery or from an adjacent room by television. So a senator being absent from the floor for a time doesn't mean they weren't watching. Pocan's assertion that Johnson wasn't there stemmed from a tweet by author Don Winslow, who has more than 600,000 followers on Twitter. The tweet showed pictures of Johnson and 13 other senators, describing them as 'the Senators that chose not to attend the impeachment trial today.' It was retweeted more than 10,000 times before Winslow deleted it sometime Feb. 12. An archived version of the tweet shows it was posted at 1:37 a.m. central time on Feb. 12. Since Winslow lives in California, that would have been 11:37 p.m. on Feb. 11 - meaning it was likely referencing the Feb. 11 proceedings, which had concluded hours earlier. This tweet was spreading widely in the middle of the day Feb. 12, so many interpreted it to be referencing Feb. 12, but the Senate proceedings didn't begin until 11 a.m. central, about 10 hours after this tweet was sent. We'll examine both days. Johnson seen in and around chamber In an email to PolitiFact the evening of Feb. 12, Voelkel said his understanding is that Johnson 'has been there the entire time.' But we don't have to take his word for it. Johnson was obviously at the hearings Feb. 12. As noted, it's not possible to prove his location at every moment in the day, but CSPAN video shows Johnson in his assigned seat (back row on the left, fourth from the left as viewed from the front of the room) during a standing ovation for Capitol police officers' work Jan. 6. In addition, Getty Images captured a picture of him during a recess in the proceedings, USA TODAY captured a photo of him after the day's session ended and CNN posted an update at 1:30 p.m. with Johnson commenting on the day's proceedings. Various news organizations also captured images of Johnson in the Capitol around the Feb. 11 hearings: Getty has a picture of him arriving at the beginning, and the Associated Press took a photo of him leaving at the end. CNN reported Feb. 11 at least 15 empty desks on the Republican side at one point, though, as noted, those senators could have been watching from other locations, and the online report didn't list the senators missing. Pocan's office provided no evidence that Johnson was absent either day. Spokesman Usamah Andrabi said the office has 'first-hand reports of him being out of the room at times,' but with viewing setup from multiple locations that doesn't prove this claim. Andrabi also asserted the 'focus' of the tweet was on Johnson's COVID conspiracy theories, though that doesn't ring true given the post was a quote retweet of a claim about Johnson's attendance. | Our ruling Pocan told Johnson to 'do your damn job and show up,' retweeting a claim that Johnson wasn't present for that day's impeachment proceedings. The timeline is a bit odd here, since the tweet that spurred this discussion likely was referencing Feb. 11, but it was being shared and debated in many cases as if it referenced to Feb. 12. In either case the now-deleted tweet was wrong about Johnson. We don't know what Johnson was doing every moment of every day, but we have photographic proof he was at the Capitol for the Feb. 11 and Feb. 12 impeachment hearings. That makes a claim he didn't 'show up' absurd. Pocan's office provided no convincing evidence to the contrary. So we have a claim based on a deleted tweet that conflicts with an array of photographic and other documented evidence. That's false and ridiculous. Or as we call it, Pants on Fire. | [
"100681-proof-18-Johnson-highlight-impeachment.jfif",
"100681-proof-32-005d1ca249e0cf51e2c8f4a7cdf4af2d.jpg"
]
|
Ron Johnson didn't 'show up' for a day of impeachment hearings. | Contradiction | Social media hosted no shortage of debates amid former President Donald Trump's second impeachment hearing, but a Feb 12, 2021, exchange centering around U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, was particularly unexpected. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin, said Johnson was a no-show on what turned out to be the second-last day of the proceedings. 'Hey @SenRonJohnson, were you too busy fighting with YouTube fighting over your crackpot theories on Covid? Do your damn job and show up,' Pocan tweeted about 9 a.m., referencing Johnson's ongoing feud over YouTube removing a video Johnson posted of COVID-related testimony from his Senate committee. It prompted an expected dose of Twitter outrage, with posters condemning Johnson and saying he shouldn't be able to vote if he didn't show up. But later that day Johnson spokesman Ben Voelkel said that was a lie and told Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Patrick Marley that Johnson had been in attendance throughout the trial. So who's right? The background Pinning down attendance is tricky since the hearing took place in the Senate Chamber, but that wasn't the only way for senators to watch the proceedings. The Senate adopted a resolution allowing senators to leave and watch from the upstairs gallery or from an adjacent room by television. So a senator being absent from the floor for a time doesn't mean they weren't watching. Pocan's assertion that Johnson wasn't there stemmed from a tweet by author Don Winslow, who has more than 600,000 followers on Twitter. The tweet showed pictures of Johnson and 13 other senators, describing them as 'the Senators that chose not to attend the impeachment trial today.' It was retweeted more than 10,000 times before Winslow deleted it sometime Feb. 12. An archived version of the tweet shows it was posted at 1:37 a.m. central time on Feb. 12. Since Winslow lives in California, that would have been 11:37 p.m. on Feb. 11 - meaning it was likely referencing the Feb. 11 proceedings, which had concluded hours earlier. This tweet was spreading widely in the middle of the day Feb. 12, so many interpreted it to be referencing Feb. 12, but the Senate proceedings didn't begin until 11 a.m. central, about 10 hours after this tweet was sent. We'll examine both days. Johnson seen in and around chamber In an email to PolitiFact the evening of Feb. 12, Voelkel said his understanding is that Johnson 'has been there the entire time.' But we don't have to take his word for it. Johnson was obviously at the hearings Feb. 12. As noted, it's not possible to prove his location at every moment in the day, but CSPAN video shows Johnson in his assigned seat (back row on the left, fourth from the left as viewed from the front of the room) during a standing ovation for Capitol police officers' work Jan. 6. In addition, Getty Images captured a picture of him during a recess in the proceedings, USA TODAY captured a photo of him after the day's session ended and CNN posted an update at 1:30 p.m. with Johnson commenting on the day's proceedings. Various news organizations also captured images of Johnson in the Capitol around the Feb. 11 hearings: Getty has a picture of him arriving at the beginning, and the Associated Press took a photo of him leaving at the end. CNN reported Feb. 11 at least 15 empty desks on the Republican side at one point, though, as noted, those senators could have been watching from other locations, and the online report didn't list the senators missing. Pocan's office provided no evidence that Johnson was absent either day. Spokesman Usamah Andrabi said the office has 'first-hand reports of him being out of the room at times,' but with viewing setup from multiple locations that doesn't prove this claim. Andrabi also asserted the 'focus' of the tweet was on Johnson's COVID conspiracy theories, though that doesn't ring true given the post was a quote retweet of a claim about Johnson's attendance. | Our ruling Pocan told Johnson to 'do your damn job and show up,' retweeting a claim that Johnson wasn't present for that day's impeachment proceedings. The timeline is a bit odd here, since the tweet that spurred this discussion likely was referencing Feb. 11, but it was being shared and debated in many cases as if it referenced to Feb. 12. In either case the now-deleted tweet was wrong about Johnson. We don't know what Johnson was doing every moment of every day, but we have photographic proof he was at the Capitol for the Feb. 11 and Feb. 12 impeachment hearings. That makes a claim he didn't 'show up' absurd. Pocan's office provided no convincing evidence to the contrary. So we have a claim based on a deleted tweet that conflicts with an array of photographic and other documented evidence. That's false and ridiculous. Or as we call it, Pants on Fire. | [
"100681-proof-18-Johnson-highlight-impeachment.jfif",
"100681-proof-32-005d1ca249e0cf51e2c8f4a7cdf4af2d.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration. | Contradiction | In what was likely the first-ever presidential debate that observed social distancing, in light of the coronavirus crisis, did Joe Biden go extreme? 'America you better pay attention to what's being said!' warned a post on Facebook on March 15, 2020, the same night of the Democratic debate on CNN. 'Joe Biden just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration.' 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.) In the one-on-one debate, Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders used the term 'day one' seven times, according to a transcript. Biden, however, did not use it once. Biden was speaking quickly during the debate and his words were not as precise as they have been at other times. But when we reached out to his campaign, a spokesperson clarified Biden's intent. Here's exactly what Biden said on oil drilling: 'Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.' Taken literally, the former vice president's debate comments could be read to mean that he would end oil drilling. Or it could mean that he would not allow any new drilling, which is how the Biden campaign described the candidate's position. Biden's campaign pointed us to the policy on Biden's campaign website of 'banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.' It says nothing about drilling on private land. On fracking, the process of blasting pressurized water, sand and chemicals into shale rock miles underground to extract natural gas, Biden said: 'No more - no new fracking.' Moments later, he repeated 'no more drilling on federal lands.' A Biden campaign spokesman clarified afterward that Biden wouldn't ban fracking - he was referring only to his stated policy to ban new permits for oil and gas drilling on federal land and offshore, the Wall Street Journal reported. | Our ruling A Facebook post says Biden 'just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration.' In a CNN debate, Biden said 'no more drilling' for oil. Taken literally, that could be interpreted to mean he supports ending oil drilling. But he did not use the words 'shut down' and his stated position has been to ban new oil drilling on federal lands and water, not end ongoing work. Biden was more clear in his debate statements regarding natural gas, saying he would not allow any new fracking. He did not say he would take either step on day one as president. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. | [
"100698-proof-27-ff921290a6d383b4411459f604745df7.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration. | Contradiction | In what was likely the first-ever presidential debate that observed social distancing, in light of the coronavirus crisis, did Joe Biden go extreme? 'America you better pay attention to what's being said!' warned a post on Facebook on March 15, 2020, the same night of the Democratic debate on CNN. 'Joe Biden just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration.' 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.) In the one-on-one debate, Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders used the term 'day one' seven times, according to a transcript. Biden, however, did not use it once. Biden was speaking quickly during the debate and his words were not as precise as they have been at other times. But when we reached out to his campaign, a spokesperson clarified Biden's intent. Here's exactly what Biden said on oil drilling: 'Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.' Taken literally, the former vice president's debate comments could be read to mean that he would end oil drilling. Or it could mean that he would not allow any new drilling, which is how the Biden campaign described the candidate's position. Biden's campaign pointed us to the policy on Biden's campaign website of 'banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.' It says nothing about drilling on private land. On fracking, the process of blasting pressurized water, sand and chemicals into shale rock miles underground to extract natural gas, Biden said: 'No more - no new fracking.' Moments later, he repeated 'no more drilling on federal lands.' A Biden campaign spokesman clarified afterward that Biden wouldn't ban fracking - he was referring only to his stated policy to ban new permits for oil and gas drilling on federal land and offshore, the Wall Street Journal reported. | Our ruling A Facebook post says Biden 'just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration.' In a CNN debate, Biden said 'no more drilling' for oil. Taken literally, that could be interpreted to mean he supports ending oil drilling. But he did not use the words 'shut down' and his stated position has been to ban new oil drilling on federal lands and water, not end ongoing work. Biden was more clear in his debate statements regarding natural gas, saying he would not allow any new fracking. He did not say he would take either step on day one as president. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. | [
"100698-proof-27-ff921290a6d383b4411459f604745df7.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration. | Contradiction | In what was likely the first-ever presidential debate that observed social distancing, in light of the coronavirus crisis, did Joe Biden go extreme? 'America you better pay attention to what's being said!' warned a post on Facebook on March 15, 2020, the same night of the Democratic debate on CNN. 'Joe Biden just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration.' 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.) In the one-on-one debate, Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders used the term 'day one' seven times, according to a transcript. Biden, however, did not use it once. Biden was speaking quickly during the debate and his words were not as precise as they have been at other times. But when we reached out to his campaign, a spokesperson clarified Biden's intent. Here's exactly what Biden said on oil drilling: 'Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.' Taken literally, the former vice president's debate comments could be read to mean that he would end oil drilling. Or it could mean that he would not allow any new drilling, which is how the Biden campaign described the candidate's position. Biden's campaign pointed us to the policy on Biden's campaign website of 'banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.' It says nothing about drilling on private land. On fracking, the process of blasting pressurized water, sand and chemicals into shale rock miles underground to extract natural gas, Biden said: 'No more - no new fracking.' Moments later, he repeated 'no more drilling on federal lands.' A Biden campaign spokesman clarified afterward that Biden wouldn't ban fracking - he was referring only to his stated policy to ban new permits for oil and gas drilling on federal land and offshore, the Wall Street Journal reported. | Our ruling A Facebook post says Biden 'just announced on CNN he will completely shut down drilling for oil and natural gas on day one of his administration.' In a CNN debate, Biden said 'no more drilling' for oil. Taken literally, that could be interpreted to mean he supports ending oil drilling. But he did not use the words 'shut down' and his stated position has been to ban new oil drilling on federal lands and water, not end ongoing work. Biden was more clear in his debate statements regarding natural gas, saying he would not allow any new fracking. He did not say he would take either step on day one as president. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. | [
"100698-proof-27-ff921290a6d383b4411459f604745df7.jpg"
]
|
When Sara Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up. | Contradiction | The serenity of the Pine Tree State is being broken by personal attacks that aren't faring too well on our Truth-O-Meter. In a Maine race that could help decide whether the GOP keeps control of the U.S. Senate, Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic challenger Sara Gideon have made a number of factually problematic claims against one another. Now, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is targeting Gideon. A TV ad sponsored by the group claims that when Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate (ethics) investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up.' A tossup race Collins has been a U.S. senator since 1997. Gideon has served in Maine's state House since 2013 and as its speaker since 2016. The Cook Political Report rates the race a tossup that could help decide whether Republicans, who have 53 seats in the Senate, maintain their majority. It is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. Alleged sexual abuse The ad's narrator refers to the case of Democratic Rep. Dillon Bates, a teacher and coach who it says 'used his power (and) sexually preyed on his teenage students.' Here's a timeline of the case: Aug. 3, 2018 - Bates accused: The Bollard, then a monthly magazine published in Portland, Maine, posted an article claiming that Bates had 'engaged in at least three romantic and/or sexual relationships with high school girls over the past half decade.' One of the three was quoted anonymously in the article. Aug. 4, 2018 - Gideon calls for Bates' resignation: Gideon, citing the article, called for Bates' resignation. Her spokeswoman Mary-Erin Casale acknowledged that Gideon had known about the misconduct accusations for several months prior and said: 'At that point, we told Rep. Bates that if any evidence or new information was presented that indicated there could be truth to what was then a rumor, that we would ask him to resign immediately.' Aug. 6, 2018 - Bates quits coaching job; Gideon says there was no evidence previously: Bates, who denied the allegations, resigned from a high school coaching job. He had resigned abruptly from a separate teaching job in November 2017, saying at the time of the resignation he did so for family reasons, according to a Aug. 6, 2018 story in the Portland Press Herald. The newspaper also quoted Casale as saying that when Gideon first heard about the rumors: 'We confronted Rep. Bates immediately, who denied the rumor, and we were unable to otherwise find any substantiation, actual proof or evidence of any victims of the allegations.' Aug. 20, 2018 - Bates resigns House seat: Bates called the allegations baseless, but resigned less than two weeks after a Republican state representative called for a House Ethics Committee session regarding the allegations. He was never charged with a crime. On Oct. 8, 2020, Gideon said in a radio interview that no individuals alleging acts by Bates had come forward until The Bollard article. 'Before that, there was nothing but a rumor,' she said. | Our ruling The National Republican Senatorial Committee said that when Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up.' There is no evidence that Gideon knew 'the truth.' She said that in early 2018 she heard rumors about the allegations, but did not know of any proof. There is also no evidence she took any action to cover up the matter. When a news article made the allegations public, Gideon called on the lawmaker to resign. We rate the statement Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"100714-proof-21-267c7318c90659d42c76c5f39d39e12d.jpg"
]
|
When Sara Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up. | Contradiction | The serenity of the Pine Tree State is being broken by personal attacks that aren't faring too well on our Truth-O-Meter. In a Maine race that could help decide whether the GOP keeps control of the U.S. Senate, Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic challenger Sara Gideon have made a number of factually problematic claims against one another. Now, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is targeting Gideon. A TV ad sponsored by the group claims that when Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate (ethics) investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up.' A tossup race Collins has been a U.S. senator since 1997. Gideon has served in Maine's state House since 2013 and as its speaker since 2016. The Cook Political Report rates the race a tossup that could help decide whether Republicans, who have 53 seats in the Senate, maintain their majority. It is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. Alleged sexual abuse The ad's narrator refers to the case of Democratic Rep. Dillon Bates, a teacher and coach who it says 'used his power (and) sexually preyed on his teenage students.' Here's a timeline of the case: Aug. 3, 2018 - Bates accused: The Bollard, then a monthly magazine published in Portland, Maine, posted an article claiming that Bates had 'engaged in at least three romantic and/or sexual relationships with high school girls over the past half decade.' One of the three was quoted anonymously in the article. Aug. 4, 2018 - Gideon calls for Bates' resignation: Gideon, citing the article, called for Bates' resignation. Her spokeswoman Mary-Erin Casale acknowledged that Gideon had known about the misconduct accusations for several months prior and said: 'At that point, we told Rep. Bates that if any evidence or new information was presented that indicated there could be truth to what was then a rumor, that we would ask him to resign immediately.' Aug. 6, 2018 - Bates quits coaching job; Gideon says there was no evidence previously: Bates, who denied the allegations, resigned from a high school coaching job. He had resigned abruptly from a separate teaching job in November 2017, saying at the time of the resignation he did so for family reasons, according to a Aug. 6, 2018 story in the Portland Press Herald. The newspaper also quoted Casale as saying that when Gideon first heard about the rumors: 'We confronted Rep. Bates immediately, who denied the rumor, and we were unable to otherwise find any substantiation, actual proof or evidence of any victims of the allegations.' Aug. 20, 2018 - Bates resigns House seat: Bates called the allegations baseless, but resigned less than two weeks after a Republican state representative called for a House Ethics Committee session regarding the allegations. He was never charged with a crime. On Oct. 8, 2020, Gideon said in a radio interview that no individuals alleging acts by Bates had come forward until The Bollard article. 'Before that, there was nothing but a rumor,' she said. | Our ruling The National Republican Senatorial Committee said that when Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up.' There is no evidence that Gideon knew 'the truth.' She said that in early 2018 she heard rumors about the allegations, but did not know of any proof. There is also no evidence she took any action to cover up the matter. When a news article made the allegations public, Gideon called on the lawmaker to resign. We rate the statement Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"100714-proof-21-267c7318c90659d42c76c5f39d39e12d.jpg"
]
|
When Sara Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up. | Contradiction | The serenity of the Pine Tree State is being broken by personal attacks that aren't faring too well on our Truth-O-Meter. In a Maine race that could help decide whether the GOP keeps control of the U.S. Senate, Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic challenger Sara Gideon have made a number of factually problematic claims against one another. Now, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is targeting Gideon. A TV ad sponsored by the group claims that when Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate (ethics) investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up.' A tossup race Collins has been a U.S. senator since 1997. Gideon has served in Maine's state House since 2013 and as its speaker since 2016. The Cook Political Report rates the race a tossup that could help decide whether Republicans, who have 53 seats in the Senate, maintain their majority. It is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. Alleged sexual abuse The ad's narrator refers to the case of Democratic Rep. Dillon Bates, a teacher and coach who it says 'used his power (and) sexually preyed on his teenage students.' Here's a timeline of the case: Aug. 3, 2018 - Bates accused: The Bollard, then a monthly magazine published in Portland, Maine, posted an article claiming that Bates had 'engaged in at least three romantic and/or sexual relationships with high school girls over the past half decade.' One of the three was quoted anonymously in the article. Aug. 4, 2018 - Gideon calls for Bates' resignation: Gideon, citing the article, called for Bates' resignation. Her spokeswoman Mary-Erin Casale acknowledged that Gideon had known about the misconduct accusations for several months prior and said: 'At that point, we told Rep. Bates that if any evidence or new information was presented that indicated there could be truth to what was then a rumor, that we would ask him to resign immediately.' Aug. 6, 2018 - Bates quits coaching job; Gideon says there was no evidence previously: Bates, who denied the allegations, resigned from a high school coaching job. He had resigned abruptly from a separate teaching job in November 2017, saying at the time of the resignation he did so for family reasons, according to a Aug. 6, 2018 story in the Portland Press Herald. The newspaper also quoted Casale as saying that when Gideon first heard about the rumors: 'We confronted Rep. Bates immediately, who denied the rumor, and we were unable to otherwise find any substantiation, actual proof or evidence of any victims of the allegations.' Aug. 20, 2018 - Bates resigns House seat: Bates called the allegations baseless, but resigned less than two weeks after a Republican state representative called for a House Ethics Committee session regarding the allegations. He was never charged with a crime. On Oct. 8, 2020, Gideon said in a radio interview that no individuals alleging acts by Bates had come forward until The Bollard article. 'Before that, there was nothing but a rumor,' she said. | Our ruling The National Republican Senatorial Committee said that when Gideon 'knew the truth about' sexual allegations against a state lawmaker, 'she could have called for an immediate investigation, but didn't...Gideon knew for months, using her power to cover up.' There is no evidence that Gideon knew 'the truth.' She said that in early 2018 she heard rumors about the allegations, but did not know of any proof. There is also no evidence she took any action to cover up the matter. When a news article made the allegations public, Gideon called on the lawmaker to resign. We rate the statement Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"100714-proof-21-267c7318c90659d42c76c5f39d39e12d.jpg"
]
|
'We have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world' from COVID-19. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump defended his performance in fighting the coronavirus during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, insisting that the mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United States is among the world's lowest. In the interview that aired July 19, Wallace and Trump were in the middle of a discussion about the coronavirus' impact. Wallace said that 'we have the seventh-highest mortality rate in the world. Our mortality rate is higher than Brazil, it's higher than Russia and the European Union has us on a travel ban.' Trump responded that 'when you talk about mortality rates, I think it's the opposite. I think we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world.' When Wallace fact-checked that characterization, Trump doubled down: 'I heard we had the best mortality rate. Number one low mortality rate.' Trump is wrong. Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to an inquiry for this article. Comparing international mortality rates Scientists define 'mortality rate' as a measure of how frequently death occurs within a defined population. Data on this question is imperfect because of reporting inconsistencies between and even within countries. We turned to widely cited coronavirus data compiled by Johns Hopkins University to analyze Trump's assertion. Specifically, we looked at the university's calculations of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 in population, which is a standard measurement of mortality rate. First, we compared the United States with other nations that have been hard-hit by the coronavirus. To do this, we looked at all nations that have recorded at least 100,000 confirmed cases. The United States has the sixth-highest mortality rate using this metric, behind the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Chile and France. But 16 hard-hit nations had a lower mortality rate: Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Iran, Colombia, Germany, South Africa, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Argentina, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. We also looked at how the United States compared with its peers among advanced industrialized nations. In this comparison, six countries had higher mortality rates than the United States: Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and France. But 15 countries had lower mortality rates than the United States: Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. By neither comparison is Trump close to correct. Mortality rate is strongly related to the age distribution in a country, said Brooke Nichols, a health economist and infectious disease mathematical modeler at the Boston University School of Public Health. 'The countries with the lowest mortality rates will probably end up being the ones with the younger population age structures,' she said. Another measurement When 'Fox News Sunday' aired the interview, Wallace said the White House had been referring to the 'case-fatality rate' rather than the mortality rate. (White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany handed Trump a paper chart citing 'case-fatality rate' during the interview.) The case-fatality rate is not the same as the mortality rate. The case-fatality rate shows how likely you are to die from the coronavirus if you are infected with it. The mortality rate shows how common it is to die of coronavirus in a particular population, such as a country. Trump's point about the U.S. is not more accurate when looking at the case-fatality rate compared with other countries. Nine countries have a higher case-fatality rate than the United States. One country, Peru, has an equal rate and 11 have a lower rate: Colombia, Chile, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Russia, South Africa, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Nichols said that the younger populations of many developing countries helps explain why their case-fatality rates are lower than that of the United States. (Infected patients who are younger and, often, healthier tend to die at lower rates from the coronavirus.) And when you compare the United States with its industrialized peers, seven countries have a lower case-fatality rate: Austria, Portugal, Norway, South Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Australia. Nichols said that the U.S ranks relatively low on this measure because, despite its problems rolling out testing, it still handles more tests per capita than most other comparable countries. | Our ruling Trump said, 'We have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world' from coronavirus. The United States doesn't have one of the world's lowest mortality rates from the coronavirus: No fewer than 15 advanced, industrialized nations currently have a lower mortality rate, as do a host of other countries, including Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, Argentina, and India. Another measurement called the case-fatality rate, which Trump incorrectly referred to as the 'mortality rate,' doesn't place the United States at or near the bottom internationally. We rate the statement False. | [
"100726-proof-03-d34816b666a340c7aaf9c2d51109b887.jpg"
]
|
'We have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world' from COVID-19. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump defended his performance in fighting the coronavirus during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, insisting that the mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United States is among the world's lowest. In the interview that aired July 19, Wallace and Trump were in the middle of a discussion about the coronavirus' impact. Wallace said that 'we have the seventh-highest mortality rate in the world. Our mortality rate is higher than Brazil, it's higher than Russia and the European Union has us on a travel ban.' Trump responded that 'when you talk about mortality rates, I think it's the opposite. I think we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world.' When Wallace fact-checked that characterization, Trump doubled down: 'I heard we had the best mortality rate. Number one low mortality rate.' Trump is wrong. Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to an inquiry for this article. Comparing international mortality rates Scientists define 'mortality rate' as a measure of how frequently death occurs within a defined population. Data on this question is imperfect because of reporting inconsistencies between and even within countries. We turned to widely cited coronavirus data compiled by Johns Hopkins University to analyze Trump's assertion. Specifically, we looked at the university's calculations of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 in population, which is a standard measurement of mortality rate. First, we compared the United States with other nations that have been hard-hit by the coronavirus. To do this, we looked at all nations that have recorded at least 100,000 confirmed cases. The United States has the sixth-highest mortality rate using this metric, behind the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Chile and France. But 16 hard-hit nations had a lower mortality rate: Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Iran, Colombia, Germany, South Africa, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Argentina, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. We also looked at how the United States compared with its peers among advanced industrialized nations. In this comparison, six countries had higher mortality rates than the United States: Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and France. But 15 countries had lower mortality rates than the United States: Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. By neither comparison is Trump close to correct. Mortality rate is strongly related to the age distribution in a country, said Brooke Nichols, a health economist and infectious disease mathematical modeler at the Boston University School of Public Health. 'The countries with the lowest mortality rates will probably end up being the ones with the younger population age structures,' she said. Another measurement When 'Fox News Sunday' aired the interview, Wallace said the White House had been referring to the 'case-fatality rate' rather than the mortality rate. (White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany handed Trump a paper chart citing 'case-fatality rate' during the interview.) The case-fatality rate is not the same as the mortality rate. The case-fatality rate shows how likely you are to die from the coronavirus if you are infected with it. The mortality rate shows how common it is to die of coronavirus in a particular population, such as a country. Trump's point about the U.S. is not more accurate when looking at the case-fatality rate compared with other countries. Nine countries have a higher case-fatality rate than the United States. One country, Peru, has an equal rate and 11 have a lower rate: Colombia, Chile, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Russia, South Africa, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Nichols said that the younger populations of many developing countries helps explain why their case-fatality rates are lower than that of the United States. (Infected patients who are younger and, often, healthier tend to die at lower rates from the coronavirus.) And when you compare the United States with its industrialized peers, seven countries have a lower case-fatality rate: Austria, Portugal, Norway, South Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Australia. Nichols said that the U.S ranks relatively low on this measure because, despite its problems rolling out testing, it still handles more tests per capita than most other comparable countries. | Our ruling Trump said, 'We have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world' from coronavirus. The United States doesn't have one of the world's lowest mortality rates from the coronavirus: No fewer than 15 advanced, industrialized nations currently have a lower mortality rate, as do a host of other countries, including Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, Argentina, and India. Another measurement called the case-fatality rate, which Trump incorrectly referred to as the 'mortality rate,' doesn't place the United States at or near the bottom internationally. We rate the statement False. | [
"100726-proof-03-d34816b666a340c7aaf9c2d51109b887.jpg"
]
|
Photo shows Kelly Loeffler's house. | Contradiction | Nestled on the banks of the Chattahoochee River in Atlanta, Ga., a 35,000-square foot mansion overlooks a sparkling infinity pool. Elsewhere on the 17-acre estate, there's a tennis court, a guesthouse and a guardhouse. A billiards room, wine cellar, movie theater, gym, sauna and massage room can be found inside. And should you need to use the facilities, there are also 14 bathrooms. 'Just remember,' reads one Facebook post that shared a photo of the home, 'this is Kelly Loeffler's house.' It's not. TV host Steve Harvey bought the property for $15 million earlier this year. 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.) U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the Republican trying to keep her Georgia seat in a runoff election against Democrat Raphael Warnock, has been called a likely contender for 'the richest politician on Capitol Hill.' Before she was appointed to her Senate seat in December 2019, Loeffler was an executive at the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange. In August, Forbes reported that Loeffler and her husband bought a 15,000-square foot estate for more than $10 million in 2009. The couple also owns three homes in Florida, a condo in Chicago, and another Georgia residence. But the house in this picture is not one of them. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
A list shows over 14,000 dead people voted in Wayne County, Michigan. | Contradiction | A viral tweet claims that thousands of dead Wayne County voters cast ballots in this election. 'Here is a list of 14+ thousand dead people who voted in Wayne County (Detroit),' the tweet says, linking to a list that provides the first and last names of just over 14,500 individuals and their birth year. This tweet marks the latest in a long line of false claims that individuals fraudulently cast mail-in ballots on behalf of dead voters. All of the voters listed are over the age of 100, but they're not all Wayne County residents, and at least several of the voters named on the list are not marked in the state's voter information center as ever having received or cast an absentee ballot. And at least one woman listed seems to still be alive. According to the state's voter information center, one voter, Imo Oliver of Ypsilanti, included on the list of allegedly dead voters cast an absentee ballot this year. The state's voter information center shows that Oliver received her absentee ballot Sept. 24, and it was returned to the clerk's office Oct. 2. PolitiFact Michigan used public records to identify the Ypsilanti voter, and spoke to a woman who identified herself as Imo Oliver. She was an elderly woman who said she suffered from memory loss, but she said her son assisted her to vote in this election. Some may be dead, but there's no evidence that the state counted any ballots cast by deceased voters. Others may be old, but there's no law establishing an age limit on voting. Michigan is a member of the Electronic Registration Information Center, a multi-state partnership that offers access to federal databases and technology to ensure the integrity of voter files. The system relies on Social Security Administration death records to flag deceased voters. The state also checks to ensure that ballots cast by people who are deceased are not counted. In the August primary, the state successfully identified ballots cast by 846 people who had passed away between casting their ballot and the election. 'Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day,' the Secretary of State's Office noted on its fact-check page. Sometimes clerical errors occur when recording ballots received by voters with similar names. The Secretary of State's fact-check notes, 'On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead.' One viral example from this week concerned a son and his late father, who shared the same name and home address. A screenshot from the voter information center showed the elder Bradley as having cast a mail ballot in the 2020 election, even though he died in 1984. PolitiFact investigated and learned this was a mistake, not voter fraud. The city clerk's office initially recorded the younger ballot as belonging to the deceased father, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections told PolitiFact. The New York Times reported that 'internet sleuths have widely disseminated what they said was evidence that showed Democrats were trying to steal the election. In virtually every case so far, mainstream journalists have found the claims to be false or the product of typical errors in the election process.' Despite widespread claims that dead voters cast ballots in Detroit, Michigan, Virginia, Nevada and Wisconsin, none stack up. This one doesn't either. | Our ruling A tweet claims that this election, over 14,000 dead people in Wayne County voted. There is no evidence to support this claim. While the list contains the names of over 14,000 individuals, they are not all Wayne County residents. Several of the individuals did not receive or cast an absentee ballot. At least one woman listed seems to still be alive. There is no evidence that Michigan clerks counted ballots fraudulently cast on behalf of dead people. We rate it False. Reporting contributed by Ashley Nerbovig | []
|
A list shows over 14,000 dead people voted in Wayne County, Michigan. | Contradiction | A viral tweet claims that thousands of dead Wayne County voters cast ballots in this election. 'Here is a list of 14+ thousand dead people who voted in Wayne County (Detroit),' the tweet says, linking to a list that provides the first and last names of just over 14,500 individuals and their birth year. This tweet marks the latest in a long line of false claims that individuals fraudulently cast mail-in ballots on behalf of dead voters. All of the voters listed are over the age of 100, but they're not all Wayne County residents, and at least several of the voters named on the list are not marked in the state's voter information center as ever having received or cast an absentee ballot. And at least one woman listed seems to still be alive. According to the state's voter information center, one voter, Imo Oliver of Ypsilanti, included on the list of allegedly dead voters cast an absentee ballot this year. The state's voter information center shows that Oliver received her absentee ballot Sept. 24, and it was returned to the clerk's office Oct. 2. PolitiFact Michigan used public records to identify the Ypsilanti voter, and spoke to a woman who identified herself as Imo Oliver. She was an elderly woman who said she suffered from memory loss, but she said her son assisted her to vote in this election. Some may be dead, but there's no evidence that the state counted any ballots cast by deceased voters. Others may be old, but there's no law establishing an age limit on voting. Michigan is a member of the Electronic Registration Information Center, a multi-state partnership that offers access to federal databases and technology to ensure the integrity of voter files. The system relies on Social Security Administration death records to flag deceased voters. The state also checks to ensure that ballots cast by people who are deceased are not counted. In the August primary, the state successfully identified ballots cast by 846 people who had passed away between casting their ballot and the election. 'Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day,' the Secretary of State's Office noted on its fact-check page. Sometimes clerical errors occur when recording ballots received by voters with similar names. The Secretary of State's fact-check notes, 'On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead.' One viral example from this week concerned a son and his late father, who shared the same name and home address. A screenshot from the voter information center showed the elder Bradley as having cast a mail ballot in the 2020 election, even though he died in 1984. PolitiFact investigated and learned this was a mistake, not voter fraud. The city clerk's office initially recorded the younger ballot as belonging to the deceased father, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections told PolitiFact. The New York Times reported that 'internet sleuths have widely disseminated what they said was evidence that showed Democrats were trying to steal the election. In virtually every case so far, mainstream journalists have found the claims to be false or the product of typical errors in the election process.' Despite widespread claims that dead voters cast ballots in Detroit, Michigan, Virginia, Nevada and Wisconsin, none stack up. This one doesn't either. | Our ruling A tweet claims that this election, over 14,000 dead people in Wayne County voted. There is no evidence to support this claim. While the list contains the names of over 14,000 individuals, they are not all Wayne County residents. Several of the individuals did not receive or cast an absentee ballot. At least one woman listed seems to still be alive. There is no evidence that Michigan clerks counted ballots fraudulently cast on behalf of dead people. We rate it False. Reporting contributed by Ashley Nerbovig | []
|
Quotes Ronald Reagan as saying, 'Keep voting Democrat ... One day they will restrict your freedoms, restrict your history and restrict your safety. All in the name of professional victims that don't understand the consequences of their ignorance. | Contradiction | Just because you were president years before the rise of social media doesn't mean you won't be the subject of online misinformation. One recent social media post invokes President Ronald Reagan and credits him with what appears to be a fabricated quote. 'Boy, Ol' Ronnie nailed this one,' the image shared on Facebook says, just above a picture of Reagan smiling. Beneath the photo, the alleged Reagan quote follows: 'Keep voting Democrat ... One day they will restrict your freedoms, restrict your history and restrict your safety. All in the name of professional victims that don't understand the consequences of their ignorance.' 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.) Reagan did not say this about Democrats. In a July 22 post, the official Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute Facebook page confirmed that the quote was not accurate. 'It has come to our attention that there is a photo of President Reagan circling around that contains the following quote,' the post says, before showing the misattributed quote. 'We would like to assure you that this quote is indeed false and President Reagan never said those words.' Melissa Giller, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation's chief marketing officer, said their search also did not reveal any indication that Reagan ever made these remarks. 'We have searched all of President Reagan's public papers and cannot find any mention of the quote,' Giller said in an email. Jennifer Newby, an archivist at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, also said there was no evidence Reagan ever said this. 'We have searched his official speeches from 1981-1987,' she said in an email. 'We are unable (to) find this quote in any of his speeches given in official capacity.' After conducting searches for the full quote and for various portions of the quote - including 'restrict your freedoms,' 'restrict your safety,' 'professional victims' and more - PolitiFact found no evidence that Reagan said this quote on the National Archives or the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library archives. Despite the fact that this quote was debunked by other fact-checking organizations in July, the claim has continued to spread online. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
Quotes Ronald Reagan as saying, 'Keep voting Democrat ... One day they will restrict your freedoms, restrict your history and restrict your safety. All in the name of professional victims that don't understand the consequences of their ignorance. | Contradiction | Just because you were president years before the rise of social media doesn't mean you won't be the subject of online misinformation. One recent social media post invokes President Ronald Reagan and credits him with what appears to be a fabricated quote. 'Boy, Ol' Ronnie nailed this one,' the image shared on Facebook says, just above a picture of Reagan smiling. Beneath the photo, the alleged Reagan quote follows: 'Keep voting Democrat ... One day they will restrict your freedoms, restrict your history and restrict your safety. All in the name of professional victims that don't understand the consequences of their ignorance.' 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.) Reagan did not say this about Democrats. In a July 22 post, the official Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute Facebook page confirmed that the quote was not accurate. 'It has come to our attention that there is a photo of President Reagan circling around that contains the following quote,' the post says, before showing the misattributed quote. 'We would like to assure you that this quote is indeed false and President Reagan never said those words.' Melissa Giller, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation's chief marketing officer, said their search also did not reveal any indication that Reagan ever made these remarks. 'We have searched all of President Reagan's public papers and cannot find any mention of the quote,' Giller said in an email. Jennifer Newby, an archivist at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, also said there was no evidence Reagan ever said this. 'We have searched his official speeches from 1981-1987,' she said in an email. 'We are unable (to) find this quote in any of his speeches given in official capacity.' After conducting searches for the full quote and for various portions of the quote - including 'restrict your freedoms,' 'restrict your safety,' 'professional victims' and more - PolitiFact found no evidence that Reagan said this quote on the National Archives or the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library archives. Despite the fact that this quote was debunked by other fact-checking organizations in July, the claim has continued to spread online. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'A declaration of disaster, has been issued for the state of Texas. House Bill 1177 Allows any Texan who can legally own a firearm to carry their handgun, open or concealed, for a full week after a state or natural disaster is declared. | Contradiction | Protests over the death of black Minnesotan George Floyd have swept the nation, with daily demonstrations in cities across the country - including in Texas. There have been reports of looting and violence at some protests, and law enforcement entities have come under fire for tactics used against participants and journalists covering the events. A Facebook post circulating online urges Texans to take advantage of a recently passed state law allowing people to carry firearms during disasters. The post claimed the law, adopted in 2019, 'allows any Texan who can legally own a firearm to carry their handgun, open or concealed, for a full week after a state or natural disaster is declared.' 'Arm yourselves, protect your family, loved ones and neighbors,' the post reads. 'Stand together, Stand your ground, protect your family and your property. If you feel threatened, You have every right to protect yourselves! Be vigilant and look out for one another, stay safe.' 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.) Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a disaster declaration on May 31 in response to violence that broke out at protests in some parts of the state. The law highlighted in the post moved through the state's legislature as House Bill 1177 and it was authored by state Rep. Dade Phelan, a Republican from Beaumont. The bill does regulate firearm usage during a natural disaster, but it was passed with 2017's Hurricane Harvey front of mind, with lawmakers arguing that the measure was necessary to give survivors of natural disasters a way to protect themselves and their property. But does it apply to this situation? We decided to find out. 'Evacuating from an area' HB 1177 allows handgun license holders and other Texans who are not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm to legally carry and transport their handguns during a mandatory emergency evacuation. It includes parameters that dictate when the law is applicable: not only must there be a state of disaster, but a person must also be 'evacuating from an area following the declaration of a state of disaster' or 'reentering that area following the person's evacuation.' The post does not make mention of the circumstances that would trigger this protection and insinuates that the law applies at any time within a week of a disaster declaration. For this reason, Lauren Lumsden, Phelan's legislative director, said it was inaccurate. 'It does not appear that the Facebook post was a correct application of the bill, since they do not seem to be evacuating,' she said. Attorneys specializing in government law reached by PolitiFact agreed with that interpretation. 'Assuming that the Governor has declared a qualifying state of disaster, it is my opinion that the statute does not allow the unrestricted open carrying of handguns,' said Texas appellate attorney and former Texas Assistant Solicitor General Ryan Clinton. 'Rather, it allows handguns to be openly carried when a person is 'evacuating from' or 'reentering' an area following the declaration of a state of disaster in the area.' Clinton also noted that the law does not apply to people who are otherwise banned from having a firearm under state or federal law. Mike Cox, legislative director of the Texas State Rifle Association, said many members had reached out to the organization about similar claims. After consulting with attorney Richard D. Hayes, II, of Houston-based law firm Walker & Taylor, Cox said he agreed that the law does not currently apply. 'The circumstances that would allow for the unlicensed carry of a handgun after a declared disaster are fairly limited,' Hayes said in a blog post and video on the matter. 'It doesn't suspend 46.02 for all purposes. It really relates to evacuating.' | Our ruling The Facebook post stated that HB 1177 applied to the ongoing state of disaster and allowed open carry of handguns. The post omits a major part of the law, which specifies that it only applies during particular scenarios. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100742-proof-11-3d927c00d19339731c2900aa3da00070.jpg"
]
|
'A declaration of disaster, has been issued for the state of Texas. House Bill 1177 Allows any Texan who can legally own a firearm to carry their handgun, open or concealed, for a full week after a state or natural disaster is declared. | Contradiction | Protests over the death of black Minnesotan George Floyd have swept the nation, with daily demonstrations in cities across the country - including in Texas. There have been reports of looting and violence at some protests, and law enforcement entities have come under fire for tactics used against participants and journalists covering the events. A Facebook post circulating online urges Texans to take advantage of a recently passed state law allowing people to carry firearms during disasters. The post claimed the law, adopted in 2019, 'allows any Texan who can legally own a firearm to carry their handgun, open or concealed, for a full week after a state or natural disaster is declared.' 'Arm yourselves, protect your family, loved ones and neighbors,' the post reads. 'Stand together, Stand your ground, protect your family and your property. If you feel threatened, You have every right to protect yourselves! Be vigilant and look out for one another, stay safe.' 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.) Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a disaster declaration on May 31 in response to violence that broke out at protests in some parts of the state. The law highlighted in the post moved through the state's legislature as House Bill 1177 and it was authored by state Rep. Dade Phelan, a Republican from Beaumont. The bill does regulate firearm usage during a natural disaster, but it was passed with 2017's Hurricane Harvey front of mind, with lawmakers arguing that the measure was necessary to give survivors of natural disasters a way to protect themselves and their property. But does it apply to this situation? We decided to find out. 'Evacuating from an area' HB 1177 allows handgun license holders and other Texans who are not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm to legally carry and transport their handguns during a mandatory emergency evacuation. It includes parameters that dictate when the law is applicable: not only must there be a state of disaster, but a person must also be 'evacuating from an area following the declaration of a state of disaster' or 'reentering that area following the person's evacuation.' The post does not make mention of the circumstances that would trigger this protection and insinuates that the law applies at any time within a week of a disaster declaration. For this reason, Lauren Lumsden, Phelan's legislative director, said it was inaccurate. 'It does not appear that the Facebook post was a correct application of the bill, since they do not seem to be evacuating,' she said. Attorneys specializing in government law reached by PolitiFact agreed with that interpretation. 'Assuming that the Governor has declared a qualifying state of disaster, it is my opinion that the statute does not allow the unrestricted open carrying of handguns,' said Texas appellate attorney and former Texas Assistant Solicitor General Ryan Clinton. 'Rather, it allows handguns to be openly carried when a person is 'evacuating from' or 'reentering' an area following the declaration of a state of disaster in the area.' Clinton also noted that the law does not apply to people who are otherwise banned from having a firearm under state or federal law. Mike Cox, legislative director of the Texas State Rifle Association, said many members had reached out to the organization about similar claims. After consulting with attorney Richard D. Hayes, II, of Houston-based law firm Walker & Taylor, Cox said he agreed that the law does not currently apply. 'The circumstances that would allow for the unlicensed carry of a handgun after a declared disaster are fairly limited,' Hayes said in a blog post and video on the matter. 'It doesn't suspend 46.02 for all purposes. It really relates to evacuating.' | Our ruling The Facebook post stated that HB 1177 applied to the ongoing state of disaster and allowed open carry of handguns. The post omits a major part of the law, which specifies that it only applies during particular scenarios. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"100742-proof-11-3d927c00d19339731c2900aa3da00070.jpg"
]
|
'Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies. | Contradiction | Republicans see a winning issue in linking crime to Democratic policies. When homicides spiked in the second half of 2020, President Donald Trump wielded it as a campaign issue, saying Republicans would restore order to crime-ridden Democratic-led cities. He lost his race, but the GOP attacks continue. In a recent tweet, the Republican National Committee blamed rising crime on Democrats. 'Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies,' Republicans tweeted June 29. Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies.- GOP (@GOP) June 29, 2021 We asked the RNC for the data behind the claims in the tweet. Their response included nothing on the link to police defunding. On the open border part, they pointed to news coverage about an increase in fentanyl seizures at the border, high-speed chases in South Texas, and FBI director Christopher Wray talking about an epidemic of drug smuggling and other illegal activity at the border. The RNC tweet is rife with inaccuracies. But its biggest flaw is the unfounded assertion that crime rate trends were a 'direct result' of Democratic policies. A few key errors Homicides increased in 2020. It's possible that the toll could have topped 19,000 last year. But the RNC tweet is not narrowly about rising homicides. It encompasses several other claims that are flawed: 'Open-border policies': The articles the RNC cited said nothing linking activity at the border to a spike in the national incidence of murders or other crimes. We found no independent research that argued that point. Criminologist and law professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah noted that when murders began to increase rapidly in mid-2020, immigration was stable or declining. 'And, obviously, Democrats did not control immigration policy in May 2020,' Cassell said. 'So any linkage between the 2020 homicide increase and immigration policies seems quite dubious.' Historic highs: The RNC tweet talked about crime reaching levels not seen in decades. Not only do they lack the data to confirm that, but based on the FBI's latest available data for homicides and other preliminary data, the U.S. is not on pace to reach the heights seen in the mid-1990s. 'Defund the police': The RNC tweet suggested that 'defund the police' is a core Democratic policy. It is not. A handful of Democrats have spoken out for it, but during the 2020 campaign, candidate Joe Biden rejected the movement. And his 2022 budget requested an increase of $304 million for police to build ties within the communities they patrol. Some Democratic-led cities did cut police budgets last year, but not many. Among the 50 largest cities, police spending as a percentage of general expenditures went up an average of 13.7%. At least 24 cities increased police funding for 2021. Crime trend: Homicides are up The RNC tweet speaks of crime broadly, but it's homicides in particular that have caused alarm since a sharp rise in the summer of 2020. That coincided with the anti-police-violence protests that spread across the country in June following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The calls to defund the police gained prominence the same month. One problem in talking about crime at this moment is that no one yet has a national picture of crime for 2020, let alone the first half of 2021. The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report is the most comprehensive data set, and the FBI hasn't published the 2020 edition yet. Other data sets lack the scope of the FBI's full assessment, but they all point in the same direction: Homicides are up. A preliminary FBI crime report for 154 cities says murders rose 10% in the first quarter of 2021 compared with a year earlier. The Major Cities Chiefs Association found a 29% rise in homicides for 63 cities in the first quarter of 2021. And the latest report from Council on Criminal Justice, an independent source of crime data, looked at 24 cities and found homicides rose by 24% in the first quarter. The topline numbers don't tell the whole story, however. For example, in the first-quarter FBI release on 154 cities, the increase in homicides was concentrated in 40% of the cities. The remaining 60% saw murders drop or stay the same. As for violent crime generally - including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault - the number remained just about the same across the full group of cities, undercutting the RNC's broad-brush claim about escalating crime. The Council on Criminal Justice's data on weekly police reports found that homicide rates generally fell after October 2020 - from a bit over 5 deaths per 100,000 to about 3 per 100,000 by March 2021. That could reflect seasonal changes; homicides tend to fall in the cooler months. But the report's authors say other unknown factors could be at work. No cause and effect The RNC's claim that rising crime was a 'direct result' of Democratic policies lacks evidence, and experts say it ignores some of the major events of 2020 that also likely had an effect on crime. 'The pandemic hit especially hard in exactly those neighborhoods where a lot of violence happens anyway,' said City University of New York criminologist Candace McCoy. 'Services that connect with teens were shutting down. Families were hit with people getting sick, some of them dying. More young adults were left to themselves.' Criminologist Eileen Ahlin at Penn State-Harrisburg noted that the economic downturn also mattered. 'Unemployment and declining mental health routinely affect crime rates,' Ahlin said. 'Last year we saw both at play.' On top of the pandemic and the disruptions it brought, there were the nationwide protests spurred by the death of George Floyd. Cassell at the University of Utah said that played a role, because it made police less likely to engage with people who might commit violence. 'Police pulled back from the kinds of aggressive steps that are often needed to most effectively fight homicides,' Cassell said. Cassell also said that dealing with marches could have taken police away from other activities. Researchers disagree whether the protests themselves had any effect. Regardless, Cassell called the GOP link between crime and a defund policy 'dubious.' Even the pandemic and the protests might not fully explain the trend in homicides. As the Council on Criminal Justice report noted, the 'homicide increase actually began in 2019, prior to the pandemic and well before protests against police violence spread across the country.' Looking at the first three months of 2020, murders rose 20% from a year earlier. The pandemic shutdown didn't take place until mid-March, and the protests didn't begin until late May. | Our ruling The Republican National Committee tweeted that 'crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies.' It's not true that crime is rising to a level we haven't seen in decades. Homicides are up, but there's no evidence that the trend is tied to a police defunding policy or Democrats' border policies, let alone that it's a 'direct result.' Experts say many other factors may have played a role, including racial-justice protests and disruptions caused by the pandemic. We rate this claim False. | [
"100768-proof-00-ed05cc49e156c5766ea10d0ea1baf88e.jpg"
]
|
'Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies. | Contradiction | Republicans see a winning issue in linking crime to Democratic policies. When homicides spiked in the second half of 2020, President Donald Trump wielded it as a campaign issue, saying Republicans would restore order to crime-ridden Democratic-led cities. He lost his race, but the GOP attacks continue. In a recent tweet, the Republican National Committee blamed rising crime on Democrats. 'Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies,' Republicans tweeted June 29. Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies.- GOP (@GOP) June 29, 2021 We asked the RNC for the data behind the claims in the tweet. Their response included nothing on the link to police defunding. On the open border part, they pointed to news coverage about an increase in fentanyl seizures at the border, high-speed chases in South Texas, and FBI director Christopher Wray talking about an epidemic of drug smuggling and other illegal activity at the border. The RNC tweet is rife with inaccuracies. But its biggest flaw is the unfounded assertion that crime rate trends were a 'direct result' of Democratic policies. A few key errors Homicides increased in 2020. It's possible that the toll could have topped 19,000 last year. But the RNC tweet is not narrowly about rising homicides. It encompasses several other claims that are flawed: 'Open-border policies': The articles the RNC cited said nothing linking activity at the border to a spike in the national incidence of murders or other crimes. We found no independent research that argued that point. Criminologist and law professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah noted that when murders began to increase rapidly in mid-2020, immigration was stable or declining. 'And, obviously, Democrats did not control immigration policy in May 2020,' Cassell said. 'So any linkage between the 2020 homicide increase and immigration policies seems quite dubious.' Historic highs: The RNC tweet talked about crime reaching levels not seen in decades. Not only do they lack the data to confirm that, but based on the FBI's latest available data for homicides and other preliminary data, the U.S. is not on pace to reach the heights seen in the mid-1990s. 'Defund the police': The RNC tweet suggested that 'defund the police' is a core Democratic policy. It is not. A handful of Democrats have spoken out for it, but during the 2020 campaign, candidate Joe Biden rejected the movement. And his 2022 budget requested an increase of $304 million for police to build ties within the communities they patrol. Some Democratic-led cities did cut police budgets last year, but not many. Among the 50 largest cities, police spending as a percentage of general expenditures went up an average of 13.7%. At least 24 cities increased police funding for 2021. Crime trend: Homicides are up The RNC tweet speaks of crime broadly, but it's homicides in particular that have caused alarm since a sharp rise in the summer of 2020. That coincided with the anti-police-violence protests that spread across the country in June following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The calls to defund the police gained prominence the same month. One problem in talking about crime at this moment is that no one yet has a national picture of crime for 2020, let alone the first half of 2021. The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report is the most comprehensive data set, and the FBI hasn't published the 2020 edition yet. Other data sets lack the scope of the FBI's full assessment, but they all point in the same direction: Homicides are up. A preliminary FBI crime report for 154 cities says murders rose 10% in the first quarter of 2021 compared with a year earlier. The Major Cities Chiefs Association found a 29% rise in homicides for 63 cities in the first quarter of 2021. And the latest report from Council on Criminal Justice, an independent source of crime data, looked at 24 cities and found homicides rose by 24% in the first quarter. The topline numbers don't tell the whole story, however. For example, in the first-quarter FBI release on 154 cities, the increase in homicides was concentrated in 40% of the cities. The remaining 60% saw murders drop or stay the same. As for violent crime generally - including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault - the number remained just about the same across the full group of cities, undercutting the RNC's broad-brush claim about escalating crime. The Council on Criminal Justice's data on weekly police reports found that homicide rates generally fell after October 2020 - from a bit over 5 deaths per 100,000 to about 3 per 100,000 by March 2021. That could reflect seasonal changes; homicides tend to fall in the cooler months. But the report's authors say other unknown factors could be at work. No cause and effect The RNC's claim that rising crime was a 'direct result' of Democratic policies lacks evidence, and experts say it ignores some of the major events of 2020 that also likely had an effect on crime. 'The pandemic hit especially hard in exactly those neighborhoods where a lot of violence happens anyway,' said City University of New York criminologist Candace McCoy. 'Services that connect with teens were shutting down. Families were hit with people getting sick, some of them dying. More young adults were left to themselves.' Criminologist Eileen Ahlin at Penn State-Harrisburg noted that the economic downturn also mattered. 'Unemployment and declining mental health routinely affect crime rates,' Ahlin said. 'Last year we saw both at play.' On top of the pandemic and the disruptions it brought, there were the nationwide protests spurred by the death of George Floyd. Cassell at the University of Utah said that played a role, because it made police less likely to engage with people who might commit violence. 'Police pulled back from the kinds of aggressive steps that are often needed to most effectively fight homicides,' Cassell said. Cassell also said that dealing with marches could have taken police away from other activities. Researchers disagree whether the protests themselves had any effect. Regardless, Cassell called the GOP link between crime and a defund policy 'dubious.' Even the pandemic and the protests might not fully explain the trend in homicides. As the Council on Criminal Justice report noted, the 'homicide increase actually began in 2019, prior to the pandemic and well before protests against police violence spread across the country.' Looking at the first three months of 2020, murders rose 20% from a year earlier. The pandemic shutdown didn't take place until mid-March, and the protests didn't begin until late May. | Our ruling The Republican National Committee tweeted that 'crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies.' It's not true that crime is rising to a level we haven't seen in decades. Homicides are up, but there's no evidence that the trend is tied to a police defunding policy or Democrats' border policies, let alone that it's a 'direct result.' Experts say many other factors may have played a role, including racial-justice protests and disruptions caused by the pandemic. We rate this claim False. | [
"100768-proof-00-ed05cc49e156c5766ea10d0ea1baf88e.jpg"
]
|
'Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies. | Contradiction | Republicans see a winning issue in linking crime to Democratic policies. When homicides spiked in the second half of 2020, President Donald Trump wielded it as a campaign issue, saying Republicans would restore order to crime-ridden Democratic-led cities. He lost his race, but the GOP attacks continue. In a recent tweet, the Republican National Committee blamed rising crime on Democrats. 'Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies,' Republicans tweeted June 29. Crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies.- GOP (@GOP) June 29, 2021 We asked the RNC for the data behind the claims in the tweet. Their response included nothing on the link to police defunding. On the open border part, they pointed to news coverage about an increase in fentanyl seizures at the border, high-speed chases in South Texas, and FBI director Christopher Wray talking about an epidemic of drug smuggling and other illegal activity at the border. The RNC tweet is rife with inaccuracies. But its biggest flaw is the unfounded assertion that crime rate trends were a 'direct result' of Democratic policies. A few key errors Homicides increased in 2020. It's possible that the toll could have topped 19,000 last year. But the RNC tweet is not narrowly about rising homicides. It encompasses several other claims that are flawed: 'Open-border policies': The articles the RNC cited said nothing linking activity at the border to a spike in the national incidence of murders or other crimes. We found no independent research that argued that point. Criminologist and law professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah noted that when murders began to increase rapidly in mid-2020, immigration was stable or declining. 'And, obviously, Democrats did not control immigration policy in May 2020,' Cassell said. 'So any linkage between the 2020 homicide increase and immigration policies seems quite dubious.' Historic highs: The RNC tweet talked about crime reaching levels not seen in decades. Not only do they lack the data to confirm that, but based on the FBI's latest available data for homicides and other preliminary data, the U.S. is not on pace to reach the heights seen in the mid-1990s. 'Defund the police': The RNC tweet suggested that 'defund the police' is a core Democratic policy. It is not. A handful of Democrats have spoken out for it, but during the 2020 campaign, candidate Joe Biden rejected the movement. And his 2022 budget requested an increase of $304 million for police to build ties within the communities they patrol. Some Democratic-led cities did cut police budgets last year, but not many. Among the 50 largest cities, police spending as a percentage of general expenditures went up an average of 13.7%. At least 24 cities increased police funding for 2021. Crime trend: Homicides are up The RNC tweet speaks of crime broadly, but it's homicides in particular that have caused alarm since a sharp rise in the summer of 2020. That coincided with the anti-police-violence protests that spread across the country in June following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The calls to defund the police gained prominence the same month. One problem in talking about crime at this moment is that no one yet has a national picture of crime for 2020, let alone the first half of 2021. The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report is the most comprehensive data set, and the FBI hasn't published the 2020 edition yet. Other data sets lack the scope of the FBI's full assessment, but they all point in the same direction: Homicides are up. A preliminary FBI crime report for 154 cities says murders rose 10% in the first quarter of 2021 compared with a year earlier. The Major Cities Chiefs Association found a 29% rise in homicides for 63 cities in the first quarter of 2021. And the latest report from Council on Criminal Justice, an independent source of crime data, looked at 24 cities and found homicides rose by 24% in the first quarter. The topline numbers don't tell the whole story, however. For example, in the first-quarter FBI release on 154 cities, the increase in homicides was concentrated in 40% of the cities. The remaining 60% saw murders drop or stay the same. As for violent crime generally - including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault - the number remained just about the same across the full group of cities, undercutting the RNC's broad-brush claim about escalating crime. The Council on Criminal Justice's data on weekly police reports found that homicide rates generally fell after October 2020 - from a bit over 5 deaths per 100,000 to about 3 per 100,000 by March 2021. That could reflect seasonal changes; homicides tend to fall in the cooler months. But the report's authors say other unknown factors could be at work. No cause and effect The RNC's claim that rising crime was a 'direct result' of Democratic policies lacks evidence, and experts say it ignores some of the major events of 2020 that also likely had an effect on crime. 'The pandemic hit especially hard in exactly those neighborhoods where a lot of violence happens anyway,' said City University of New York criminologist Candace McCoy. 'Services that connect with teens were shutting down. Families were hit with people getting sick, some of them dying. More young adults were left to themselves.' Criminologist Eileen Ahlin at Penn State-Harrisburg noted that the economic downturn also mattered. 'Unemployment and declining mental health routinely affect crime rates,' Ahlin said. 'Last year we saw both at play.' On top of the pandemic and the disruptions it brought, there were the nationwide protests spurred by the death of George Floyd. Cassell at the University of Utah said that played a role, because it made police less likely to engage with people who might commit violence. 'Police pulled back from the kinds of aggressive steps that are often needed to most effectively fight homicides,' Cassell said. Cassell also said that dealing with marches could have taken police away from other activities. Researchers disagree whether the protests themselves had any effect. Regardless, Cassell called the GOP link between crime and a defund policy 'dubious.' Even the pandemic and the protests might not fully explain the trend in homicides. As the Council on Criminal Justice report noted, the 'homicide increase actually began in 2019, prior to the pandemic and well before protests against police violence spread across the country.' Looking at the first three months of 2020, murders rose 20% from a year earlier. The pandemic shutdown didn't take place until mid-March, and the protests didn't begin until late May. | Our ruling The Republican National Committee tweeted that 'crime is escalating to a level we haven't seen in decades as a direct result of Democrats' defund the police movement and Biden-Harris open-border policies.' It's not true that crime is rising to a level we haven't seen in decades. Homicides are up, but there's no evidence that the trend is tied to a police defunding policy or Democrats' border policies, let alone that it's a 'direct result.' Experts say many other factors may have played a role, including racial-justice protests and disruptions caused by the pandemic. We rate this claim False. | [
"100768-proof-00-ed05cc49e156c5766ea10d0ea1baf88e.jpg"
]
|
'Florida is doing over five times better' than New Jersey and New York in COVID-19 deaths per million people. | Contradiction | A Facebook post that argues that Florida compares favorably with New Jersey and New York in the rate of COVID-19 deaths has a point. But it's misleading, and there is much more to the story. 'This is a time-sensitive and difficult metric,' Dr. Myron Cohen, an epidemiologist and director of Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina, told PolitiFact. 'You do not know the true denominator - death rate versus number of people infected - and you cannot see forward. Any discussions such as these lack proper context.' The July 26 post, from a Facebook user with more than 1.4 million followers, says: 'Despite all the fake, negative media hype, as of posting this the Covid death count per 1 million population: 'NJ: 1,787 NY: 1,680 Florida: 273 'Florida is doing over 5 TIMES better in deaths, yet media tells the opposite story because they protect Democrats.' 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 user, saying the media highlights that Florida's COVID-19 cases are surging, cited a table of Worldometer data. When we checked the site's state data on July 29, we found that Florida's death rate was one-sixth of New Jersey's and New York's. The same was true on other databases we checked, including one from Johns Hopkins University. But it's a limited measure, bearing on a state that became a hotspot well after New York and New Jersey. The situation Here's what news reports said about Florida's record-breaking coronavirus surge in the days before the post: Florida had the highest single-day total of new cases by any state, with more than 15,000 new infections. There were 872 deaths in one week, the highest weekly total in the Sunshine State during the outbreak. Florida was among the 21 states with outbreaks serious enough to place them in the 'red zone,' according to a federal report. For a larger perspective, among the 20 countries currently most affected by COVID-19, the United States has the fourth-highest death rate per 100,000 people, behind the United Kingdom, Peru and Chile, according to Johns Hopkins University. Adding context Timing is a big reason why the statistic cited in the Facebook post is misleading. New Jersey and New York were hit hard early in the pandemic, and Florida was hit later. 'One has to wait until all is over to really see how 'well' states have been doing,' Dr. Werner Bischoff, professor of infectious diseases at Wake Forest University, told PolitiFact. As of July 30, Florida recorded 988 COVID-19 deaths in the previous seven days, compared with 91 in New Jersey and 114 in New York, according to the New York Times. Death counts and rates are lagging indicators, which means they can confirm a trend after the fact, but can't necessarily predict the course of the outbreak. 'While cases started to increase exponentially in Florida in June, deaths only started to increase exponentially in July,' Boston University global health professor Brooke Nichols told PolitiFact. 'The only way to compare these types of death rates meaningfully would be once we are several months after Florida's first wave - and compare that to several months after the first wave in New York and New Jersey,' she said. Nichols gave an example. On April 4, when the first wave of cases in New York peaked, the state had 237 deaths per 1 million population. Using July 16 as a peak in cases for Florida, the death rate was 223 deaths per million. 'Those two numbers are eerily similar, and a foreshadow of what's to come in Florida,' Nichols said. | Our ruling The Facebook post said 'Florida is doing over 5 TIMES better in deaths' than New York and New Jersey. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our ruling is Mostly False. | [
"100769-proof-13-e2efac146e8b90b81427a069b0c22ebb.jpg"
]
|
'Florida is doing over five times better' than New Jersey and New York in COVID-19 deaths per million people. | Contradiction | A Facebook post that argues that Florida compares favorably with New Jersey and New York in the rate of COVID-19 deaths has a point. But it's misleading, and there is much more to the story. 'This is a time-sensitive and difficult metric,' Dr. Myron Cohen, an epidemiologist and director of Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina, told PolitiFact. 'You do not know the true denominator - death rate versus number of people infected - and you cannot see forward. Any discussions such as these lack proper context.' The July 26 post, from a Facebook user with more than 1.4 million followers, says: 'Despite all the fake, negative media hype, as of posting this the Covid death count per 1 million population: 'NJ: 1,787 NY: 1,680 Florida: 273 'Florida is doing over 5 TIMES better in deaths, yet media tells the opposite story because they protect Democrats.' 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 user, saying the media highlights that Florida's COVID-19 cases are surging, cited a table of Worldometer data. When we checked the site's state data on July 29, we found that Florida's death rate was one-sixth of New Jersey's and New York's. The same was true on other databases we checked, including one from Johns Hopkins University. But it's a limited measure, bearing on a state that became a hotspot well after New York and New Jersey. The situation Here's what news reports said about Florida's record-breaking coronavirus surge in the days before the post: Florida had the highest single-day total of new cases by any state, with more than 15,000 new infections. There were 872 deaths in one week, the highest weekly total in the Sunshine State during the outbreak. Florida was among the 21 states with outbreaks serious enough to place them in the 'red zone,' according to a federal report. For a larger perspective, among the 20 countries currently most affected by COVID-19, the United States has the fourth-highest death rate per 100,000 people, behind the United Kingdom, Peru and Chile, according to Johns Hopkins University. Adding context Timing is a big reason why the statistic cited in the Facebook post is misleading. New Jersey and New York were hit hard early in the pandemic, and Florida was hit later. 'One has to wait until all is over to really see how 'well' states have been doing,' Dr. Werner Bischoff, professor of infectious diseases at Wake Forest University, told PolitiFact. As of July 30, Florida recorded 988 COVID-19 deaths in the previous seven days, compared with 91 in New Jersey and 114 in New York, according to the New York Times. Death counts and rates are lagging indicators, which means they can confirm a trend after the fact, but can't necessarily predict the course of the outbreak. 'While cases started to increase exponentially in Florida in June, deaths only started to increase exponentially in July,' Boston University global health professor Brooke Nichols told PolitiFact. 'The only way to compare these types of death rates meaningfully would be once we are several months after Florida's first wave - and compare that to several months after the first wave in New York and New Jersey,' she said. Nichols gave an example. On April 4, when the first wave of cases in New York peaked, the state had 237 deaths per 1 million population. Using July 16 as a peak in cases for Florida, the death rate was 223 deaths per million. 'Those two numbers are eerily similar, and a foreshadow of what's to come in Florida,' Nichols said. | Our ruling The Facebook post said 'Florida is doing over 5 TIMES better in deaths' than New York and New Jersey. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our ruling is Mostly False. | [
"100769-proof-13-e2efac146e8b90b81427a069b0c22ebb.jpg"
]
|
A CDC report found that 'people who wear masks, are actually 'collecting' the virus in their masks. | Contradiction | Health researchers have consistently found strong correlations between wearing a face mask and reducing the spread of disease like COVID-19. But new posts on Facebook inaccurately claim that wearing a mask makes you more likely to contract COVID-19, misinterpreting a survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention along the way. The post features a screenshot of a data table from the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. A highlighted row shows that 70.6% of these people who tested positive for the virus reported that they 'always' wore masks or cloth face mask coverings. 'This is really REALLY BIG,' the post reads. 'HUGE... From the CDC... 70.6% of those testing positive wore masks ALWAYS. 3.9% of those testing positive wore masks NEVER. This means that people who wear masks, are actually 'collecting' the virus in their masks. The airborne particles are being absorbed into the Masks and staying on our faces rather than dissipating. A clear indication there is a correlation to more infected people wearing masks than those who do not.' 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.) Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman evaluated the post and the CDC report from which it's purportedly sourced for PolitiFact. 'There's nothing in this (report) that indicates that mask wearing is associated with more coronavirus,' he said. 'Honestly, I don't even know how that could be possible.' CDC report finds the opposite of what Facebook post claims The CDC paper never claims that mask use increases your likelihood of contracting the coronavirus. The CDC continues to recommend that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who don't live in their home. Instead, the paper summarizes findings from a survey of 314 people. 154 of these people had tested positive for the coronavirus. The other 160 participants (the study's control group) had tested negative for the coronavirus. From the results of the survey, the CDC report found that two activities were linked to a positive COVID-19 test: close contact with someone who tested positive for coronavirus and going to locations with on-site eating and drinking options, such as bars and restaurants. The correlation between frequenting on-site eating locations and a positive COVID-19 test probably indicates that masks play a role in preventing the spread of the virus. The paper notes that masks 'cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking,' so diners and bar-goers are likely exposed to infectious respiratory droplets when they lower their masks to take a drink or a bite of food. The table featured in the Facebook post doesn't show that mask use is correlated with the spread of the coronavirus. In fact, it shows the opposite: more people who tested negative for the coronavirus reported that they 'always' wore masks than people who tested positive. Of the 160 survey participants who tested negative, 74.2% reported that they 'always' wore a face mask or cloth face covering. Of the 154 participants who tested positive, 70.6% reported that they 'always' wore a mask or face covering. Neuman took issue with the survey asking participants to self-report their rates of mask use. 'Conducting science by survey has problems,' he said. 'There are certain things that are embarrassing or politically and socially sensitive, and you generally won't get honest answers if you just ask them on a questionnaire because (participants) don't know if they can trust the person on the other end, don't know if they'll be repercussions, or may just be embarrassed about telling the truth.' The CDC did not respond to our request for comment by deadline. How masks work The Facebook post's claim that masks are 'collecting' infectious airborne particles mischaracterizes the science behind masks and how they stop viral spread. Masks are most effective as 'source control,' preventing infected people from spreading the virus to other people. Although masks do provide the wearer some protection, people can still be infected while having them on. Respiratory droplets with the virus are expelled into the air when infected people cough, talk, sneeze, or breathe. These droplets quickly evaporate and shrink to become tiny airborne particles, which are extremely difficult to remove. However, if an infected person is wearing a mask, it will catch and contain the larger droplets in the humid space between the person's mouth and the mask. In this environment, droplets take nearly a hundred times as long to transform into airborne particles. Neuman shared three studies of hundreds of thousands of infected people that all found that mask-wearing reduces the likelihood of contracting the coronavirus. Unlike the CDC report, these studies didn't rely on survey data and self-reported rates of mask use. The first paper, which analyzed trends in infections in Wuhan, China, Italy, and New York City, found that face mask mandates were 'the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission.' The researchers found that a mask mandate reduced infections by over 75,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and over 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9. The second paper, which reviewed 172 studies conducted on a total of 25,697 patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS across 16 countries and six continents, found that face masks 'were associated with a much lower risk of infection.' The third paper, which analyzed 15 U.S. states found that daily infection rates decreased significantly after mask mandates were introduced. In seven of the 15 states, researchers from UC San Diego and Texas A&M found that the number of new infections per day increased steadily only to fall after face-mask requirements were implemented. In the six states the researchers analyzed that never implemented mask mandates, infections continued to increase on the same upward line. They estimated that mask mandates had prevented a total of 252,000 infections on May 18, equivalent to nearly 17% of infections in the nation at that point in time. | Our ruling A Facebook post says that a CDC report found that 'people who wear masks, are actually 'collecting' the virus in their masks.' The CDC report cited in the post actually found the opposite: More people who tested negative for COVID-19 reported wearing masks than people who tested positive. Other scientific studies have consistently found that mask wearing decreases the spread of coronavirus. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | [
"100792-proof-12-083c128c0e57f9cc85c43cc54ac18587.jpg"
]
|
A CDC report found that 'people who wear masks, are actually 'collecting' the virus in their masks. | Contradiction | Health researchers have consistently found strong correlations between wearing a face mask and reducing the spread of disease like COVID-19. But new posts on Facebook inaccurately claim that wearing a mask makes you more likely to contract COVID-19, misinterpreting a survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention along the way. The post features a screenshot of a data table from the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. A highlighted row shows that 70.6% of these people who tested positive for the virus reported that they 'always' wore masks or cloth face mask coverings. 'This is really REALLY BIG,' the post reads. 'HUGE... From the CDC... 70.6% of those testing positive wore masks ALWAYS. 3.9% of those testing positive wore masks NEVER. This means that people who wear masks, are actually 'collecting' the virus in their masks. The airborne particles are being absorbed into the Masks and staying on our faces rather than dissipating. A clear indication there is a correlation to more infected people wearing masks than those who do not.' 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.) Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman evaluated the post and the CDC report from which it's purportedly sourced for PolitiFact. 'There's nothing in this (report) that indicates that mask wearing is associated with more coronavirus,' he said. 'Honestly, I don't even know how that could be possible.' CDC report finds the opposite of what Facebook post claims The CDC paper never claims that mask use increases your likelihood of contracting the coronavirus. The CDC continues to recommend that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who don't live in their home. Instead, the paper summarizes findings from a survey of 314 people. 154 of these people had tested positive for the coronavirus. The other 160 participants (the study's control group) had tested negative for the coronavirus. From the results of the survey, the CDC report found that two activities were linked to a positive COVID-19 test: close contact with someone who tested positive for coronavirus and going to locations with on-site eating and drinking options, such as bars and restaurants. The correlation between frequenting on-site eating locations and a positive COVID-19 test probably indicates that masks play a role in preventing the spread of the virus. The paper notes that masks 'cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking,' so diners and bar-goers are likely exposed to infectious respiratory droplets when they lower their masks to take a drink or a bite of food. The table featured in the Facebook post doesn't show that mask use is correlated with the spread of the coronavirus. In fact, it shows the opposite: more people who tested negative for the coronavirus reported that they 'always' wore masks than people who tested positive. Of the 160 survey participants who tested negative, 74.2% reported that they 'always' wore a face mask or cloth face covering. Of the 154 participants who tested positive, 70.6% reported that they 'always' wore a mask or face covering. Neuman took issue with the survey asking participants to self-report their rates of mask use. 'Conducting science by survey has problems,' he said. 'There are certain things that are embarrassing or politically and socially sensitive, and you generally won't get honest answers if you just ask them on a questionnaire because (participants) don't know if they can trust the person on the other end, don't know if they'll be repercussions, or may just be embarrassed about telling the truth.' The CDC did not respond to our request for comment by deadline. How masks work The Facebook post's claim that masks are 'collecting' infectious airborne particles mischaracterizes the science behind masks and how they stop viral spread. Masks are most effective as 'source control,' preventing infected people from spreading the virus to other people. Although masks do provide the wearer some protection, people can still be infected while having them on. Respiratory droplets with the virus are expelled into the air when infected people cough, talk, sneeze, or breathe. These droplets quickly evaporate and shrink to become tiny airborne particles, which are extremely difficult to remove. However, if an infected person is wearing a mask, it will catch and contain the larger droplets in the humid space between the person's mouth and the mask. In this environment, droplets take nearly a hundred times as long to transform into airborne particles. Neuman shared three studies of hundreds of thousands of infected people that all found that mask-wearing reduces the likelihood of contracting the coronavirus. Unlike the CDC report, these studies didn't rely on survey data and self-reported rates of mask use. The first paper, which analyzed trends in infections in Wuhan, China, Italy, and New York City, found that face mask mandates were 'the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission.' The researchers found that a mask mandate reduced infections by over 75,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and over 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9. The second paper, which reviewed 172 studies conducted on a total of 25,697 patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS across 16 countries and six continents, found that face masks 'were associated with a much lower risk of infection.' The third paper, which analyzed 15 U.S. states found that daily infection rates decreased significantly after mask mandates were introduced. In seven of the 15 states, researchers from UC San Diego and Texas A&M found that the number of new infections per day increased steadily only to fall after face-mask requirements were implemented. In the six states the researchers analyzed that never implemented mask mandates, infections continued to increase on the same upward line. They estimated that mask mandates had prevented a total of 252,000 infections on May 18, equivalent to nearly 17% of infections in the nation at that point in time. | Our ruling A Facebook post says that a CDC report found that 'people who wear masks, are actually 'collecting' the virus in their masks.' The CDC report cited in the post actually found the opposite: More people who tested negative for COVID-19 reported wearing masks than people who tested positive. Other scientific studies have consistently found that mask wearing decreases the spread of coronavirus. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | [
"100792-proof-12-083c128c0e57f9cc85c43cc54ac18587.jpg"
]
|
'Biden invested the entire family fortune in Ukraine gas and oil. Then shuts down Keystone pipeline. Starting to get the picture. | Contradiction | Hunter Biden's background in the Ukraine energy sector was a recurring target of critics during his father's 2020 presidential campaign. And today, on social media at least, this son's history in Ukraine has followed Joe Biden into the White House. 'Biden invested the entire family fortune in Ukraine gas and oil. Then shuts down Keystone pipeline. Starting to get the picture,' said a Jan. 23 Facebook post with white text on a blue background. 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.) At root, the post claims that Biden has made a policy move to enrich himself. But the post spins a few unrelated bits of evidence into an inaccurate assertion. (The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) Hunter Biden and Ukraine Hunter Biden, who co-founded a business consulting firm, held a directorship for a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while his father was serving as vice president. In 2015, Viktor Shokin, Ukraine's top prosecutor general, was in charge of investigating corruption associated with Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky. But several Western leaders, activists and institutions argued Shokin was not pursuing corruption aggressively enough. They were largely united in seeking Shokin's removal. As vice president, Joe Biden urged Ukraine to fire Shokin, and threatened to withhold U.S. aid. But we've found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind. Biden's position was that of the U.S. government and its allies. It's not clear that the company would have benefited from Shokin's ouster anyway, given evidence that investigations into Burisma had long been dormant. The episode became part of President Donald Trump's first impeachment in 2019 after news reports surfaced about a phone call in which he pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, using U.S. military aid to Ukraine as leverage, to target the Bidens, which would have helped Trump's reelection campaign. Trump was impeached, but the Senate did not sustain a conviction. The Keystone XL pipeline On Jan. 20, Biden signed an order that revoked the permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline is an international project years in the making. The 875-mile pipeline was intended to carry a heavy crude oil mixture from Western Canada to Steele City, Neb., where it would connect with another leg stretching to Gulf Coast refineries. Environmental groups have long opposed the pipeline, both on its merits and as a symbol of fossil fuel dependency. Biden's order revokes the permit that was granted March 29, 2019, by then-President Donald Trump on the grounds that it is harmful to the environment. Without support from the U.S. government, it's effectively halted. Backers of expanded petroleum development expressed criticism of Biden's decision, as well as other actions he's taken that curb expansion of oil and gas drilling. The blocking of Keystone XL fits with Biden's focus on curbing the long-term use of fossil fuels as a way to reduce climate change. Biden's investments By law, presidential candidates need to file financial disclosure forms to give the public a sense of their holdings and, potentially, where conflicts of interest may lie. Biden filed such a form in 2020 covering himself and his wife Jill, and the form gives no indication that he's invested in any specific Ukrainian oil or gas entity, much less that he's gone all in with his fortune on such an investment. On the form, Biden reported income from the University of Pennsylvania as well as a corporation he used as a vehicle for funneling income he made from speeches and appearances. He also listed bank accounts and diversified mutual funds as assets. It's also well known that Biden, throughout his adulthood, has funneled income into real estate. While the properties he owns are not listed on the disclosure form, a Jan. 20 article by Town & Country magazine cited two homes the family owns, one in Greenville, Del., and a second in Rehoboth Beach, Del. There is no evidence that any portion of Joe and Jill Biden's assets are invested in Ukrainian gas and oil, much less that he canceled the pipeline in order to make his investments more valuable. (It's also not clear that canceling Keystone XL would have had that effect on the Ukrainian oil and gas sector.) We rate the statement False. | We rate the statement False. | [
"100805-proof-27-dddcf815e5ccb0f507d6612288259af1.jpg"
]
|
'Biden invested the entire family fortune in Ukraine gas and oil. Then shuts down Keystone pipeline. Starting to get the picture. | Contradiction | Hunter Biden's background in the Ukraine energy sector was a recurring target of critics during his father's 2020 presidential campaign. And today, on social media at least, this son's history in Ukraine has followed Joe Biden into the White House. 'Biden invested the entire family fortune in Ukraine gas and oil. Then shuts down Keystone pipeline. Starting to get the picture,' said a Jan. 23 Facebook post with white text on a blue background. 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.) At root, the post claims that Biden has made a policy move to enrich himself. But the post spins a few unrelated bits of evidence into an inaccurate assertion. (The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) Hunter Biden and Ukraine Hunter Biden, who co-founded a business consulting firm, held a directorship for a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while his father was serving as vice president. In 2015, Viktor Shokin, Ukraine's top prosecutor general, was in charge of investigating corruption associated with Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky. But several Western leaders, activists and institutions argued Shokin was not pursuing corruption aggressively enough. They were largely united in seeking Shokin's removal. As vice president, Joe Biden urged Ukraine to fire Shokin, and threatened to withhold U.S. aid. But we've found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind. Biden's position was that of the U.S. government and its allies. It's not clear that the company would have benefited from Shokin's ouster anyway, given evidence that investigations into Burisma had long been dormant. The episode became part of President Donald Trump's first impeachment in 2019 after news reports surfaced about a phone call in which he pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, using U.S. military aid to Ukraine as leverage, to target the Bidens, which would have helped Trump's reelection campaign. Trump was impeached, but the Senate did not sustain a conviction. The Keystone XL pipeline On Jan. 20, Biden signed an order that revoked the permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline is an international project years in the making. The 875-mile pipeline was intended to carry a heavy crude oil mixture from Western Canada to Steele City, Neb., where it would connect with another leg stretching to Gulf Coast refineries. Environmental groups have long opposed the pipeline, both on its merits and as a symbol of fossil fuel dependency. Biden's order revokes the permit that was granted March 29, 2019, by then-President Donald Trump on the grounds that it is harmful to the environment. Without support from the U.S. government, it's effectively halted. Backers of expanded petroleum development expressed criticism of Biden's decision, as well as other actions he's taken that curb expansion of oil and gas drilling. The blocking of Keystone XL fits with Biden's focus on curbing the long-term use of fossil fuels as a way to reduce climate change. Biden's investments By law, presidential candidates need to file financial disclosure forms to give the public a sense of their holdings and, potentially, where conflicts of interest may lie. Biden filed such a form in 2020 covering himself and his wife Jill, and the form gives no indication that he's invested in any specific Ukrainian oil or gas entity, much less that he's gone all in with his fortune on such an investment. On the form, Biden reported income from the University of Pennsylvania as well as a corporation he used as a vehicle for funneling income he made from speeches and appearances. He also listed bank accounts and diversified mutual funds as assets. It's also well known that Biden, throughout his adulthood, has funneled income into real estate. While the properties he owns are not listed on the disclosure form, a Jan. 20 article by Town & Country magazine cited two homes the family owns, one in Greenville, Del., and a second in Rehoboth Beach, Del. There is no evidence that any portion of Joe and Jill Biden's assets are invested in Ukrainian gas and oil, much less that he canceled the pipeline in order to make his investments more valuable. (It's also not clear that canceling Keystone XL would have had that effect on the Ukrainian oil and gas sector.) We rate the statement False. | We rate the statement False. | [
"100805-proof-27-dddcf815e5ccb0f507d6612288259af1.jpg"
]
|
'Biden invested the entire family fortune in Ukraine gas and oil. Then shuts down Keystone pipeline. Starting to get the picture. | Contradiction | Hunter Biden's background in the Ukraine energy sector was a recurring target of critics during his father's 2020 presidential campaign. And today, on social media at least, this son's history in Ukraine has followed Joe Biden into the White House. 'Biden invested the entire family fortune in Ukraine gas and oil. Then shuts down Keystone pipeline. Starting to get the picture,' said a Jan. 23 Facebook post with white text on a blue background. 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.) At root, the post claims that Biden has made a policy move to enrich himself. But the post spins a few unrelated bits of evidence into an inaccurate assertion. (The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) Hunter Biden and Ukraine Hunter Biden, who co-founded a business consulting firm, held a directorship for a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while his father was serving as vice president. In 2015, Viktor Shokin, Ukraine's top prosecutor general, was in charge of investigating corruption associated with Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky. But several Western leaders, activists and institutions argued Shokin was not pursuing corruption aggressively enough. They were largely united in seeking Shokin's removal. As vice president, Joe Biden urged Ukraine to fire Shokin, and threatened to withhold U.S. aid. But we've found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind. Biden's position was that of the U.S. government and its allies. It's not clear that the company would have benefited from Shokin's ouster anyway, given evidence that investigations into Burisma had long been dormant. The episode became part of President Donald Trump's first impeachment in 2019 after news reports surfaced about a phone call in which he pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, using U.S. military aid to Ukraine as leverage, to target the Bidens, which would have helped Trump's reelection campaign. Trump was impeached, but the Senate did not sustain a conviction. The Keystone XL pipeline On Jan. 20, Biden signed an order that revoked the permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline is an international project years in the making. The 875-mile pipeline was intended to carry a heavy crude oil mixture from Western Canada to Steele City, Neb., where it would connect with another leg stretching to Gulf Coast refineries. Environmental groups have long opposed the pipeline, both on its merits and as a symbol of fossil fuel dependency. Biden's order revokes the permit that was granted March 29, 2019, by then-President Donald Trump on the grounds that it is harmful to the environment. Without support from the U.S. government, it's effectively halted. Backers of expanded petroleum development expressed criticism of Biden's decision, as well as other actions he's taken that curb expansion of oil and gas drilling. The blocking of Keystone XL fits with Biden's focus on curbing the long-term use of fossil fuels as a way to reduce climate change. Biden's investments By law, presidential candidates need to file financial disclosure forms to give the public a sense of their holdings and, potentially, where conflicts of interest may lie. Biden filed such a form in 2020 covering himself and his wife Jill, and the form gives no indication that he's invested in any specific Ukrainian oil or gas entity, much less that he's gone all in with his fortune on such an investment. On the form, Biden reported income from the University of Pennsylvania as well as a corporation he used as a vehicle for funneling income he made from speeches and appearances. He also listed bank accounts and diversified mutual funds as assets. It's also well known that Biden, throughout his adulthood, has funneled income into real estate. While the properties he owns are not listed on the disclosure form, a Jan. 20 article by Town & Country magazine cited two homes the family owns, one in Greenville, Del., and a second in Rehoboth Beach, Del. There is no evidence that any portion of Joe and Jill Biden's assets are invested in Ukrainian gas and oil, much less that he canceled the pipeline in order to make his investments more valuable. (It's also not clear that canceling Keystone XL would have had that effect on the Ukrainian oil and gas sector.) We rate the statement False. | We rate the statement False. | [
"100805-proof-27-dddcf815e5ccb0f507d6612288259af1.jpg"
]
|
In the infrastructure bill that just passed the House, 'only 10% is actual infrastructure. | Contradiction | In a long-awaited vote, the House on Nov. 5 approved an infrastructure bill crafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and supported by President Joe Biden. The measure, which includes more than $500 billion in new spending plus additional money from reallocated funds, has already passed the Senate and now heads to Biden's desk for his signature. When the House voted, six progressive Democrats opposed it, which would have been enough to tank the bill had 13 Republicans not crossed party lines to vote with most Democrats. (In the earlier Senate vote, 19 Republicans joined all of the chamber's Democrats in supporting the bill.) One Republican who voted against the infrastructure bill was freshman Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich. She took to Twitter on Nov. 6. to explain her vote: 'While you were sleeping, the Democrats passed their 'infrastructure' bill. I voted no because it is filled with pork & only 10% is actual infrastructure. Michigan's roads and bridges need repairs, but the wasteful spending in this bill will harm America for generations to come.' While you were sleeping, the Democrats passed their 'infrastructure' bill. I voted no because it is filled with pork & only 10% is actual infrastructure. Michigan's roads and bridges need repairs, but the wasteful spending in this bill will harm America for generations to come.- Representative Lisa McClain (@RepLisaMcClain) November 6, 2021 Saying that just 10% of the bill is 'actual infrastructure' is ridiculously off-base. When Biden first proposed what would eventually become the infrastructure bill in April, we gave a Pants on Fire rating to Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., for saying 'something less than 6%' of the proposal 'is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure Cheney cited applied to spending on roads, bridges and highways but excluded items in Biden's proposal that are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. (Cheney voted against the infrastructure bill when it came up in the House.) McClain's statement is, if anything, more inaccurate than Cheney's, because several large elements of the original proposal that had the weakest claims to be considered 'infrastructure' were stricken from the bill that passed both chambers. (McClain's office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) This transformation of the bill happened because Biden and congressional leaders decided to seek bipartisan buy-in for a pure infrastructure bill and then vote separately on a set of safety-net measures that are more polarizing between the parties. For instance, when Cheney made her statement, Biden was seeking $400 billion for expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. That never made it into the bill that passed both chambers. Other elements of Biden's original plan fell into a gray area, fitting under some definitions of infrastructure but not others. These included $590 billion for research and development and domestic manufacturing; $400 billion in clean energy tax credits; and $328 billion for capital investments in housing, schools, child care centers, veterans hospitals and other federal buildings. But these did not make it into the final infrastructure bill. Instead, the bill that passed the House and Senate consisted almost entirely of traditional infrastructure provisions. Here's one categorization by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that scrutinizes federal spending. • Roads, bridges and major projects: $110 billion • Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion • Public transit: $39 billion • Airports: $25 billion • Ports and waterways: $17 billion • Electric vehicles: $15 billion • Road safety: $11 billion • Reconnecting communities: $1 billion • Electricity infrastructure: $73 billion • Broadband: $65 billion • Water infrastructure, including lead pipe replacement: $55 billion • Resiliency and Western water storage: $50 billion • Environmental remediation: $21 billion Total: $548 billion A few of these categories might be called infrastructure-adjacent rather than pure infrastructure, such as road safety and environmental remediation. But even if you set those two categories aside, roughly 94% of the spending is allocated to categories that are pretty clearly infrastructure - not the 10% McClain said. The bill will provide McClain's home state of Michigan $7.3 billion for highway repairs and more than $500 million for bridge work over the next five years, the Detroit Free Press reported. Funding for airports, ports, waterways, broadband, the electric grid, and drinking water systems are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service, told PolitiFact for our April article. Adie Tomer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, agreed. 'There is no reason to exclude traditional infrastructure categories - transportation, water resources, energy, and telecommunications - when assessing' Biden's agenda, Tomer told us in April. 'For decades, and in some cases centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.' | Our ruling McClain said that in the infrastructure bill that just passed the House, 'only 10% is actual infrastructure.' This is a version of a Republican talking point that was inaccurate months ago and has been rendered even more inaccurate since then. Because Biden and congressional Democrats split their agenda into an infrastructure-only bill and a separate measure that dealt with social safety net spending, the bill that passed the House was almost entirely pure infrastructure spending. We rate the statement Pants on Fire! | [
"100830-proof-25-86c30a37f7f693d8510b17d0875302e4.jpg"
]
|
In the infrastructure bill that just passed the House, 'only 10% is actual infrastructure. | Contradiction | In a long-awaited vote, the House on Nov. 5 approved an infrastructure bill crafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and supported by President Joe Biden. The measure, which includes more than $500 billion in new spending plus additional money from reallocated funds, has already passed the Senate and now heads to Biden's desk for his signature. When the House voted, six progressive Democrats opposed it, which would have been enough to tank the bill had 13 Republicans not crossed party lines to vote with most Democrats. (In the earlier Senate vote, 19 Republicans joined all of the chamber's Democrats in supporting the bill.) One Republican who voted against the infrastructure bill was freshman Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich. She took to Twitter on Nov. 6. to explain her vote: 'While you were sleeping, the Democrats passed their 'infrastructure' bill. I voted no because it is filled with pork & only 10% is actual infrastructure. Michigan's roads and bridges need repairs, but the wasteful spending in this bill will harm America for generations to come.' While you were sleeping, the Democrats passed their 'infrastructure' bill. I voted no because it is filled with pork & only 10% is actual infrastructure. Michigan's roads and bridges need repairs, but the wasteful spending in this bill will harm America for generations to come.- Representative Lisa McClain (@RepLisaMcClain) November 6, 2021 Saying that just 10% of the bill is 'actual infrastructure' is ridiculously off-base. When Biden first proposed what would eventually become the infrastructure bill in April, we gave a Pants on Fire rating to Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., for saying 'something less than 6%' of the proposal 'is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure Cheney cited applied to spending on roads, bridges and highways but excluded items in Biden's proposal that are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. (Cheney voted against the infrastructure bill when it came up in the House.) McClain's statement is, if anything, more inaccurate than Cheney's, because several large elements of the original proposal that had the weakest claims to be considered 'infrastructure' were stricken from the bill that passed both chambers. (McClain's office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) This transformation of the bill happened because Biden and congressional leaders decided to seek bipartisan buy-in for a pure infrastructure bill and then vote separately on a set of safety-net measures that are more polarizing between the parties. For instance, when Cheney made her statement, Biden was seeking $400 billion for expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. That never made it into the bill that passed both chambers. Other elements of Biden's original plan fell into a gray area, fitting under some definitions of infrastructure but not others. These included $590 billion for research and development and domestic manufacturing; $400 billion in clean energy tax credits; and $328 billion for capital investments in housing, schools, child care centers, veterans hospitals and other federal buildings. But these did not make it into the final infrastructure bill. Instead, the bill that passed the House and Senate consisted almost entirely of traditional infrastructure provisions. Here's one categorization by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that scrutinizes federal spending. • Roads, bridges and major projects: $110 billion • Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion • Public transit: $39 billion • Airports: $25 billion • Ports and waterways: $17 billion • Electric vehicles: $15 billion • Road safety: $11 billion • Reconnecting communities: $1 billion • Electricity infrastructure: $73 billion • Broadband: $65 billion • Water infrastructure, including lead pipe replacement: $55 billion • Resiliency and Western water storage: $50 billion • Environmental remediation: $21 billion Total: $548 billion A few of these categories might be called infrastructure-adjacent rather than pure infrastructure, such as road safety and environmental remediation. But even if you set those two categories aside, roughly 94% of the spending is allocated to categories that are pretty clearly infrastructure - not the 10% McClain said. The bill will provide McClain's home state of Michigan $7.3 billion for highway repairs and more than $500 million for bridge work over the next five years, the Detroit Free Press reported. Funding for airports, ports, waterways, broadband, the electric grid, and drinking water systems are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service, told PolitiFact for our April article. Adie Tomer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, agreed. 'There is no reason to exclude traditional infrastructure categories - transportation, water resources, energy, and telecommunications - when assessing' Biden's agenda, Tomer told us in April. 'For decades, and in some cases centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.' | Our ruling McClain said that in the infrastructure bill that just passed the House, 'only 10% is actual infrastructure.' This is a version of a Republican talking point that was inaccurate months ago and has been rendered even more inaccurate since then. Because Biden and congressional Democrats split their agenda into an infrastructure-only bill and a separate measure that dealt with social safety net spending, the bill that passed the House was almost entirely pure infrastructure spending. We rate the statement Pants on Fire! | [
"100830-proof-25-86c30a37f7f693d8510b17d0875302e4.jpg"
]
|
'George Floyd's 'murder' filmed before COVID-19. | Contradiction | George Floyd died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes. We've already debunked claims that his death was staged. But a Facebook post presents a new conspiracy theory for why Floyd's death was a planned psychological operation. 'George Floyd's 'murder' filmed before COVID-19,' the post says. 'It just dawned on me the most glaring component of the Floyd psyop.... It was filmed before covid19.... How do I know.... Not a single person is wearing a mask... Not one of the cops.... Not Floyd. Not his passenger. Not the market police. Not the bystanders. Don't you think a police department would have a mask mandate.... I watch the mayor and all other press conferences and everyone is wearing a mask.' 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.) Floyd's death wasn't filmed before the coronavirus pandemic. A bystander recorded his fatal encounter with police on May 25. That happened to be a day before Minneapolis started requiring people to wear face masks when they're gathering indoors in public spaces. Minneapolis police have been expected to wear masks since April with a few exceptions. 'We acknowledge that there are some people who are simply going to be uncomfortable dealing with police officers who are wearing masks,' a spokesman for the police department said at the time. Even with the requirements, mask use has been inconsistent across the United States. In the recording of Floyd's death, some people, including officers, are not wearing masks. But some are, contrary to what the Facebook post says. And there's corroborating video footage from that day. The Washington Post used security footage, emergency services recording and cell phone video to create a timeline of what happened in the moments before Floyd died. Around the 2:25 minute mark in this Post video, security footage shows an officer arriving on the scene wearing a face covering. After he gets out of the car, he puts on gloves. Starting around the 2:35 mark, another officer - Thomas Lane, one of the four charged in Floyd's death - walks away from the people he was speaking with toward the security camera; he's clearly wearing a face mask, too. Around the 6:15 mark, another person standing among a gathering crowd can be seen wearing a face mask. Around the 6:39 mark, a man in a brown uniform can be seen wearing a mask as he helps load Floyd's stretcher into an ambulance. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
'George Floyd's 'murder' filmed before COVID-19. | Contradiction | George Floyd died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes. We've already debunked claims that his death was staged. But a Facebook post presents a new conspiracy theory for why Floyd's death was a planned psychological operation. 'George Floyd's 'murder' filmed before COVID-19,' the post says. 'It just dawned on me the most glaring component of the Floyd psyop.... It was filmed before covid19.... How do I know.... Not a single person is wearing a mask... Not one of the cops.... Not Floyd. Not his passenger. Not the market police. Not the bystanders. Don't you think a police department would have a mask mandate.... I watch the mayor and all other press conferences and everyone is wearing a mask.' 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.) Floyd's death wasn't filmed before the coronavirus pandemic. A bystander recorded his fatal encounter with police on May 25. That happened to be a day before Minneapolis started requiring people to wear face masks when they're gathering indoors in public spaces. Minneapolis police have been expected to wear masks since April with a few exceptions. 'We acknowledge that there are some people who are simply going to be uncomfortable dealing with police officers who are wearing masks,' a spokesman for the police department said at the time. Even with the requirements, mask use has been inconsistent across the United States. In the recording of Floyd's death, some people, including officers, are not wearing masks. But some are, contrary to what the Facebook post says. And there's corroborating video footage from that day. The Washington Post used security footage, emergency services recording and cell phone video to create a timeline of what happened in the moments before Floyd died. Around the 2:25 minute mark in this Post video, security footage shows an officer arriving on the scene wearing a face covering. After he gets out of the car, he puts on gloves. Starting around the 2:35 mark, another officer - Thomas Lane, one of the four charged in Floyd's death - walks away from the people he was speaking with toward the security camera; he's clearly wearing a face mask, too. Around the 6:15 mark, another person standing among a gathering crowd can be seen wearing a face mask. Around the 6:39 mark, a man in a brown uniform can be seen wearing a mask as he helps load Floyd's stretcher into an ambulance. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
'George Floyd's 'murder' filmed before COVID-19. | Contradiction | George Floyd died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes. We've already debunked claims that his death was staged. But a Facebook post presents a new conspiracy theory for why Floyd's death was a planned psychological operation. 'George Floyd's 'murder' filmed before COVID-19,' the post says. 'It just dawned on me the most glaring component of the Floyd psyop.... It was filmed before covid19.... How do I know.... Not a single person is wearing a mask... Not one of the cops.... Not Floyd. Not his passenger. Not the market police. Not the bystanders. Don't you think a police department would have a mask mandate.... I watch the mayor and all other press conferences and everyone is wearing a mask.' 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.) Floyd's death wasn't filmed before the coronavirus pandemic. A bystander recorded his fatal encounter with police on May 25. That happened to be a day before Minneapolis started requiring people to wear face masks when they're gathering indoors in public spaces. Minneapolis police have been expected to wear masks since April with a few exceptions. 'We acknowledge that there are some people who are simply going to be uncomfortable dealing with police officers who are wearing masks,' a spokesman for the police department said at the time. Even with the requirements, mask use has been inconsistent across the United States. In the recording of Floyd's death, some people, including officers, are not wearing masks. But some are, contrary to what the Facebook post says. And there's corroborating video footage from that day. The Washington Post used security footage, emergency services recording and cell phone video to create a timeline of what happened in the moments before Floyd died. Around the 2:25 minute mark in this Post video, security footage shows an officer arriving on the scene wearing a face covering. After he gets out of the car, he puts on gloves. Starting around the 2:35 mark, another officer - Thomas Lane, one of the four charged in Floyd's death - walks away from the people he was speaking with toward the security camera; he's clearly wearing a face mask, too. Around the 6:15 mark, another person standing among a gathering crowd can be seen wearing a face mask. Around the 6:39 mark, a man in a brown uniform can be seen wearing a mask as he helps load Floyd's stretcher into an ambulance. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
The WHO coronavirus test 'was a bad test. | Contradiction | A persistent but inaccurate talking point is that the United States turned down coronavirus testing kits from the World Health Organization. We found that WHO never offered kits to the United States, and when a reporter asked President Donald Trump if that was true, he confirmed, and took it a step further. 'No. 1, nothing was offered,' Trump said March 17. 'No. 2, it was a bad test.' There is zero evidence that the WHO's preferred test is unreliable. Based on a test developed in Berlin, Germany, by the end of February, WHO had purchased and sent materials to over 100 countries for 1.4 million tests. A review from the National University of Singapore reported that the German test gave neither false positives, nor false negatives. In technical terms, it was 'highly sensitive and specific,' and did not 'cross-react with other coronaviruses.' Before Trump spoke, top officials explained that the United States wanted a test that came through American commercial vendors and had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The head of the U.S. Public Health Service, Adm. Brett Giroir, said the WHO protocol had not been submitted to the FDA. The head of the White House coronavirus response, Deborah Birx, said that a few months from now, the public would see that other tests used around the world were not as good as the U.S. one. We asked the White House press office if Birx was talking about the WHO test and got no comment. | Our ruling Trump said that the coronavirus test used by WHO 'was a bad test.' In the lab, the test was found to produce neither false positives nor negatives. The White House produced no evidence that the test under-performed. We rate this claim False. | [
"100838-proof-04-48a49998d2e9cedbfd99a46d96be4e49.jpg"
]
|
The WHO coronavirus test 'was a bad test. | Contradiction | A persistent but inaccurate talking point is that the United States turned down coronavirus testing kits from the World Health Organization. We found that WHO never offered kits to the United States, and when a reporter asked President Donald Trump if that was true, he confirmed, and took it a step further. 'No. 1, nothing was offered,' Trump said March 17. 'No. 2, it was a bad test.' There is zero evidence that the WHO's preferred test is unreliable. Based on a test developed in Berlin, Germany, by the end of February, WHO had purchased and sent materials to over 100 countries for 1.4 million tests. A review from the National University of Singapore reported that the German test gave neither false positives, nor false negatives. In technical terms, it was 'highly sensitive and specific,' and did not 'cross-react with other coronaviruses.' Before Trump spoke, top officials explained that the United States wanted a test that came through American commercial vendors and had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The head of the U.S. Public Health Service, Adm. Brett Giroir, said the WHO protocol had not been submitted to the FDA. The head of the White House coronavirus response, Deborah Birx, said that a few months from now, the public would see that other tests used around the world were not as good as the U.S. one. We asked the White House press office if Birx was talking about the WHO test and got no comment. | Our ruling Trump said that the coronavirus test used by WHO 'was a bad test.' In the lab, the test was found to produce neither false positives nor negatives. The White House produced no evidence that the test under-performed. We rate this claim False. | [
"100838-proof-04-48a49998d2e9cedbfd99a46d96be4e49.jpg"
]
|
The WHO coronavirus test 'was a bad test. | Contradiction | A persistent but inaccurate talking point is that the United States turned down coronavirus testing kits from the World Health Organization. We found that WHO never offered kits to the United States, and when a reporter asked President Donald Trump if that was true, he confirmed, and took it a step further. 'No. 1, nothing was offered,' Trump said March 17. 'No. 2, it was a bad test.' There is zero evidence that the WHO's preferred test is unreliable. Based on a test developed in Berlin, Germany, by the end of February, WHO had purchased and sent materials to over 100 countries for 1.4 million tests. A review from the National University of Singapore reported that the German test gave neither false positives, nor false negatives. In technical terms, it was 'highly sensitive and specific,' and did not 'cross-react with other coronaviruses.' Before Trump spoke, top officials explained that the United States wanted a test that came through American commercial vendors and had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The head of the U.S. Public Health Service, Adm. Brett Giroir, said the WHO protocol had not been submitted to the FDA. The head of the White House coronavirus response, Deborah Birx, said that a few months from now, the public would see that other tests used around the world were not as good as the U.S. one. We asked the White House press office if Birx was talking about the WHO test and got no comment. | Our ruling Trump said that the coronavirus test used by WHO 'was a bad test.' In the lab, the test was found to produce neither false positives nor negatives. The White House produced no evidence that the test under-performed. We rate this claim False. | [
"100838-proof-04-48a49998d2e9cedbfd99a46d96be4e49.jpg"
]
|
Photo shows Tampa Mayor Jane Castor maskless at Super Bowl. | Contradiction | After videos of maskless Buccaneers fans celebrating the team's Super Bowl win spread on social media, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor said she was frustrated by people who had flouted her executive order requiring face coverings in certain outdoor areas of the city. But another image that's being shared on Facebook accuses the mayor of hypocrisy. 'BREAKING,' reads a screenshot of a tweet. 'At a press conference Monday, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor said that maskless fans at the Super Bowl will be 'identified' by law enforcement and that police will 'handle' the situation.' The words 'Jane Castor,' 'maskless' and 'identified' are circled in red, with an arrow pointing to a photo showing Castor sitting next to a man wearing a mask while nothing is covering her face. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There are a couple things wrong with it. First, Castor wasn't talking about authorities identifying and dealing with maskless fans. She was referring to a 'few bad actors' who vandalized street signs and other property. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis banned municipalities from fining people who refused to wear masks in September. The city of Tampa didn't issue citations to people who weren't wearing a mask, a mayor's office spokesperson told Newsweek. As for the photo, Castor can be seen sitting next to two people wearing Tampa Bay Lightning jerseys. The hockey team won the Stanley Cup in 2020. A spokesperson for the city told Newsweek that the photo was taken during a celebration for the team at Raymond James Stadium on Sept. 30. Castor attended the Super Bowl on Feb. 7 but she wore a mask, a spokesperson told PolitiFact. Castor, who gave a speech at the stadium that evening, posted photos of herself without a mask during a boat parade to mark the Stanley Cup victory. She's drawn criticism for complaining about maskless Super Bowl partiers when she didn't wear one during the revelry for the Lightning. But this photo doesn't show her at the Super Bowl and she wasn't talking about authorities trying to identify maskless fans. We rate that claim False. UPDATE, Feb. 12: We updated the story with comment from the City of Tampa, which we received after publication. | We rate that claim False. UPDATE, Feb. 12: We updated the story with comment from the City of Tampa, which we received after publication. | []
|
'California has six extra' congressional representatives 'because illegals are counted' in the census. | Contradiction | All U.S. residents, including immigrants here legally or illegally, are eligible to be counted in the national census mandated by the Constitution that's done every 10 years. Those counts determine how many U.S. House seats each state gets and, in turn, the number of electoral votes it gets in presidential elections. We found no evidence to back a claim that California has six more House seats than it would have if people in the country illegally were excluded from the apportionment. The claim 'is off base,' said demographer Dudley Poston Jr., an emeritus professor of sociology at Texas A&M University. He and other experts say California likely has two to four more seats than it would without counting people in the country illegally. But according to the U.S. Constitution, all residents are to be counted in the census and for the purpose of apportionment, regardless of immigration or citizenship status. The claim On July 23 on Facebook, conservative podcast host Dan Bongino shared an article from his Bongino.com that carried this headline: 'Report: California Has Six Extra Representatives Because Illegals Are Counted in Census.' The report that article cited is actually a Facebook post published the previous day from a Facebook user called Unbiased America. It refers to the 2010 census in making the California claim. Bongino's Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It comes as President Donald Trump seeks to exclude the count of immigrants in the country illegally in determining how the House's 435 seats are divided up after the 2020 census. We asked Bongino via Facebook Messenger if he had any additional information we should consider in doing this fact-check. He referred us to the author of the Bongino.com article, who did not provide us any additional information. (As we prepared to publish this fact-check on Aug. 6, Bongino's Facebook post was no longer available. A message on Facebook said: 'This Content Isn't Available Right Now. When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.' We archived Bongino's original post.) Constitution doesn't cite legal status in counting Regarding apportionment, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not refer to citizenship or residency status with regard to counting residents. It declares: 'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.' The 'Indians not taxed' clause was made obsolete by laws that granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship. Courts have held that all people be counted. Citizenship question on census forms As we've reported, the last time all households were asked about U.S. citizenship was in the 1950 census. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau used two questionnaires: a long form and short form. About 1 in 6 households received the long-form questionnaire, which included a question on citizenship. The 2010 census used only a short-form questionnaire with 10 questions. It did not ask about citizenship. 'It is impossible to know how many undocumented immigrants might have been included in the 2010 census count,' John Weeks, director of the International Population Center at San Diego State University, told PolitiFact. The Supreme Court last year blocked an effort by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, questioning its rationale. 'Extra' seats: 2 to 4, not 6 As a result of the 2010 census, California has 53 U.S. House seats, the most of any state. Its delegation includes the House leaders of both parties: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican. We did not find evidence to back a claim of six 'extra seats.' The Census Bureau did not provide information to PolitiFact on whether the claim is accurate. According to estimates by the Pew Research Center, the Public Policy Institute of California and others, California has more than 2 million immigrants who are in the country illegally. Poston, who has done analyses regarding the 2000 and 2020 censuses, estimated that the counting of these immigrants in the 2010 census accounts for two or three of California's House seats. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which works to reduce legal and illegal immigration, estimated three or four. Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which uses data to argue for low levels of immigration, estimated two. Another demography expert, University of Houston sociology professor Amanda Baumle, said the claim of six appears to be based on analyses of apportionment based on only U.S. citizens being counted, and not lawful permanent residents or other noncitizens with legal status. Immigrants without legal status, she estimates, account for three California seats. One of the articles cited by Unbiased America, a 2007 post by Mehlman's group, says the difference would be six if only U.S. citizens were counted. The 2020 census Immigration status may come into play with the outcome of the 2020 census. In July, Trump issued a memorandum directing that immigrants in the country illegally be excluded from the apportionment base following the 2020 census - that is, they would not be counted in determining how many House representatives each state gets. 'Excluding these illegal aliens from the apportionment base is more consonant with the principles of representative democracy underpinning our system of government,' the memo says. Census and legal experts say such an action would be illegal and unconstitutional, and several lawsuits have been filed challenging the order. The suit filed by California and several other plaintiffs notes that all immigrants have been included since the first national census in 1790, and that the U.S. Constitution mandates that all persons be counted for apportionment. In a 2012 paper, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said 'it appears a constitutional amendment would be necessary to exclude any individuals from the census count for the purpose of apportioning House seats.' If Trump's order withstands challenges, California, Florida and Texas would each end up with one fewer congressional seat than they would have been awarded based on population change alone; and Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each hold on to a seat that they would have otherwise lost, the Pew Research Center reported. | Our ruling A Facebook post says California has six 'extra' U.S. House representatives because immigrants in the country illegally are counted in the census. Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all residents are to be counted in the census for purposes of apportionment. The amendment does not refer to legal residency status. Census and demographic experts say California would have two to four fewer seats if immigrants who are here illegally were excluded from the count used to determine apportionment of House seats. We rate the post Mostly False. | []
|
'California has six extra' congressional representatives 'because illegals are counted' in the census. | Contradiction | All U.S. residents, including immigrants here legally or illegally, are eligible to be counted in the national census mandated by the Constitution that's done every 10 years. Those counts determine how many U.S. House seats each state gets and, in turn, the number of electoral votes it gets in presidential elections. We found no evidence to back a claim that California has six more House seats than it would have if people in the country illegally were excluded from the apportionment. The claim 'is off base,' said demographer Dudley Poston Jr., an emeritus professor of sociology at Texas A&M University. He and other experts say California likely has two to four more seats than it would without counting people in the country illegally. But according to the U.S. Constitution, all residents are to be counted in the census and for the purpose of apportionment, regardless of immigration or citizenship status. The claim On July 23 on Facebook, conservative podcast host Dan Bongino shared an article from his Bongino.com that carried this headline: 'Report: California Has Six Extra Representatives Because Illegals Are Counted in Census.' The report that article cited is actually a Facebook post published the previous day from a Facebook user called Unbiased America. It refers to the 2010 census in making the California claim. Bongino's Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It comes as President Donald Trump seeks to exclude the count of immigrants in the country illegally in determining how the House's 435 seats are divided up after the 2020 census. We asked Bongino via Facebook Messenger if he had any additional information we should consider in doing this fact-check. He referred us to the author of the Bongino.com article, who did not provide us any additional information. (As we prepared to publish this fact-check on Aug. 6, Bongino's Facebook post was no longer available. A message on Facebook said: 'This Content Isn't Available Right Now. When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.' We archived Bongino's original post.) Constitution doesn't cite legal status in counting Regarding apportionment, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not refer to citizenship or residency status with regard to counting residents. It declares: 'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.' The 'Indians not taxed' clause was made obsolete by laws that granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship. Courts have held that all people be counted. Citizenship question on census forms As we've reported, the last time all households were asked about U.S. citizenship was in the 1950 census. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau used two questionnaires: a long form and short form. About 1 in 6 households received the long-form questionnaire, which included a question on citizenship. The 2010 census used only a short-form questionnaire with 10 questions. It did not ask about citizenship. 'It is impossible to know how many undocumented immigrants might have been included in the 2010 census count,' John Weeks, director of the International Population Center at San Diego State University, told PolitiFact. The Supreme Court last year blocked an effort by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, questioning its rationale. 'Extra' seats: 2 to 4, not 6 As a result of the 2010 census, California has 53 U.S. House seats, the most of any state. Its delegation includes the House leaders of both parties: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican. We did not find evidence to back a claim of six 'extra seats.' The Census Bureau did not provide information to PolitiFact on whether the claim is accurate. According to estimates by the Pew Research Center, the Public Policy Institute of California and others, California has more than 2 million immigrants who are in the country illegally. Poston, who has done analyses regarding the 2000 and 2020 censuses, estimated that the counting of these immigrants in the 2010 census accounts for two or three of California's House seats. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which works to reduce legal and illegal immigration, estimated three or four. Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which uses data to argue for low levels of immigration, estimated two. Another demography expert, University of Houston sociology professor Amanda Baumle, said the claim of six appears to be based on analyses of apportionment based on only U.S. citizens being counted, and not lawful permanent residents or other noncitizens with legal status. Immigrants without legal status, she estimates, account for three California seats. One of the articles cited by Unbiased America, a 2007 post by Mehlman's group, says the difference would be six if only U.S. citizens were counted. The 2020 census Immigration status may come into play with the outcome of the 2020 census. In July, Trump issued a memorandum directing that immigrants in the country illegally be excluded from the apportionment base following the 2020 census - that is, they would not be counted in determining how many House representatives each state gets. 'Excluding these illegal aliens from the apportionment base is more consonant with the principles of representative democracy underpinning our system of government,' the memo says. Census and legal experts say such an action would be illegal and unconstitutional, and several lawsuits have been filed challenging the order. The suit filed by California and several other plaintiffs notes that all immigrants have been included since the first national census in 1790, and that the U.S. Constitution mandates that all persons be counted for apportionment. In a 2012 paper, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said 'it appears a constitutional amendment would be necessary to exclude any individuals from the census count for the purpose of apportioning House seats.' If Trump's order withstands challenges, California, Florida and Texas would each end up with one fewer congressional seat than they would have been awarded based on population change alone; and Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each hold on to a seat that they would have otherwise lost, the Pew Research Center reported. | Our ruling A Facebook post says California has six 'extra' U.S. House representatives because immigrants in the country illegally are counted in the census. Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all residents are to be counted in the census for purposes of apportionment. The amendment does not refer to legal residency status. Census and demographic experts say California would have two to four fewer seats if immigrants who are here illegally were excluded from the count used to determine apportionment of House seats. We rate the post Mostly False. | []
|
Nancy Pelosi explains how Democrats demonize political opponents through the 'wrap-up smear. | Contradiction | Social media users are claiming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted she used smear tactics to demonize political opponents. According to these users, a YouTube video even shows her saying so in her very own words. The video, an excerpt from a June 22, 2017, press briefing, began circulating in 2018 after allegations of sexual assault dominated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. Conservative activist groups, pundits and conspiracy outlets all asserted that it showed Pelosi describing the 'smear' tactics that Democrats had used on Kavanaugh. More recent posts have claimed that the clip shows Pelosi describing the tactics Democrats used to attack former President Donald Trump. Here's why you shouldn't believe these claims: The video takes Pelosi out of context and misleadingly captions her remarks, making it seem like she's explaining a political tactic called the 'wrap-up smear' that she and other Democrats have deployed in the past. 'It's a self-fulfilling prophecy,' Pelosi says in the clip, which has been viewed on YouTube more than 60,000 times. 'You demonize, and then you - we call it the wrap-up smear. You want to talk about politics? It's called the wrap-up smear. You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it, and then you write it, and they'll say 'See, it's reported in the press that this, this, this and this,' so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it's called a wrap-up smear. 'Now I'm going to merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made.' It's a tactic, and it's self-evident.' The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the clip cuts out both the question that Pelosi was responding to and the first part of her remarks. A longer version of the video shows that Pelosi was accusing Republicans of using the 'wrap-up smear' against Democrats running for office in the 2018 midterms. She was not laying out a blueprint of how to smear Republican opponents. Here's a transcript of the relevant passage from Pelosi's press briefing, complete with the question she was answering when she made her 'wrap-up smear' comment. Reporter: 'Is it worth it to try and I guess like rehab your image in some of these Republican districts, which would sort of present what you've done, or are you guys more focused on just-' Pelosi: 'Well, people say to me all the time, 'you raise more money than anybody,' maybe not the Obamas and the Clintons, but I've not run for president. 'Why don't you spend some of your money on yourself? Go out there and say what you did, this, this and this.' But you know, it's just not... Maybe I should, but the fact is, what I want to do is have these members present themselves. Because basically at the end of the day that's what people are interested in - their representative and what their representative is going to do for their district. Republicans are afraid of that contrast in a race. Because they're going to go there to be involved in trickle-down economics, shutting down hospitals, and the rest of it. So they don't want them to see that contrast, so they focus on something else. And it's a diversionary tactic. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You demonize, and then you - we call it the wrap-up smear. You want to talk about politics? It's called the wrap-up smear. You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it, and then you write it, and they'll say 'See, it's reported in the press that this, this, and this,' so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it's called a wrap-up smear. 'Now I'm going to merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made.' It's a tactic, and it's self-evident.' This was not the first time that Pelosi spoke disapprovingly of the 'wrap-up smear.' In a March 6, 2017, interview on CNN, Pelosi accused Trump of using 'wrap-up smears' against former President Barack Obama. | Our ruling A YouTube video appears to show Pelosi describing how to demonize political opponents through a tactic called the 'wrap-up smear.' The video takes Pelosi of context and misleadingly captions her remarks. The full transcript and clip of her comments shows that she was actually criticizing Republicans for engaging in smear tactics, not advocating that Democrats do so. Pants on Fire! | [
"100848-proof-07-f14d0579b1d3d3b8cc07b3252b5e86f9.jpg"
]
|
Says President Joe Biden sparked a migrant caravan from Honduras and questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops at the inauguration. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden had been in office only for a few hours when claims began to circulate about how he had already failed in his new role. 'It has been a terrible start for 'the big guy,'' Restoration PAC, a super PAC based in suburban Chicago, posted on Facebook on Jan. 20, following the late-morning presidential inauguration. An accompanying image read: '4 Biden failures before taking office: Sparked an immigration crisis - migrant caravan from Honduras is moving towards the US border; questioned the loyalty of US troops in Washington D.C.; invoked race during the U.S. Capitol riot - said BLM would be treated differently by police; calls for unity but goes along with the divisive impeachment.' For this fact-check, we focused on the first two points. The latter two are accurate: Biden said Black Lives Matter protesters would have been treated differently than U.S. Capitol rioters were, and his assessment is supported by several examinations that compared police responses to summer protests for racial justice with the riot. And Biden supports the impeachment trial, which he has said he thinks the Senate can juggle with its usual business. 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.) As a super PAC, Restoration PAC has few limits on fundraising or spending to advocate for or against political candidates. In the 2020 election cycle, Restoration PAC spent $18.7 million on communications to oppose Democrats, and $1 million on communications supporting Republicans. 'Sparked an immigration crisis' The claim that Biden 'sparked an immigration crisis' draws a connection between his actions and a migrant caravan from Honduras that the Facebook post says 'is moving toward the U.S. border.' The migrants were attempting to flee Honduras, beset for years by poverty and gang violence and now ravaged by COVID-19. The already desperate conditions in the country were worsened by two major hurricanes in November that left many people without jobs or homes. By the time the Facebook post was published, though, the caravan had already dissipated in Guatemala, stopped by roadblocks where Guatemalan forces used tear gas and batons to turn back the group of thousands. It is not uncommon for migration to occur around the time of U.S. elections and transitions of power, NBC News reported, citing spikes in late 2016, early 2017 and 2018 around the time of the midterm elections. Opponents of Biden's immigration plans have sought to link his proposals to the caravan's movement. U.S. Rep Ken Buck, R-Colo., tweeted a video on Jan. 20 of the Honduran migrants clashing with Guatemalan soldiers, writing, 'This is what happens when you announce plans to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Joe Biden's open borders plan has consequences.' But a Biden proposal to provide a route to citizenship for immigrants illegally in the country would apply only to people who were already in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021, to deter migrants from moving toward the U.S. border. 'Questioned the loyalty of US troops in Washington, D.C.' The Facebook post's claim that Biden 'questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops in Washington, D.C.' does not include examples or specifics. It likely is related to the decision to vet all National Guard troops assigned to the city for the inauguration, after concerns about extremism and insider threats. PolitiFact did not find any published comments from Biden or his representatives about the vetting process or the loyalty of the National Guard. The screening resulted in 12 National Guard members being removed from inaugural duties. Two of them had made extremist statements about the event, the Associated Press reported. 'This type of vetting often takes place by law enforcement for significant security events,' said Christopher Miller, the Acting Secretary of Defense under Trump, in a Jan. 18 statement. 'However, in this case the scope of military participation is unique.' Regarding the scope, 25,000 members of the National Guard were deployed for Biden's inauguration, compared with more than 7,000 for Trump's 2017 inauguration. The National Guard presence at inaugural events was beefed up following a Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and the background checks were added after the discovery that ex-military members had participated in the riot. Nine of the people arrested for participating in the riot were former U.S. military members, ABC News reported. One of the five people who died as a result of the riot was a U.S. Air Force veteran shot by police as she climbed through a window near the House chamber. We contacted Restoration PAC for comment but did not receive a reply. | Our ruling A Facebook post attacking Biden's pre-presidential 'failures' blamed him for a migrant caravan from Honduras and said he questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops in Washington. Biden's proposal to provide a route to citizenship for immigrants is only applicable to people who were already in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021. The caravan that had been headed for the U.S. border disbanded. PolitiFact did not find any evidence that Biden questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops in Washington. The decision to vet the National Guard members deployed for the inauguration followed the discovery that ex-military members had participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. We rate these claims Mostly False. | [
"100863-proof-00-2ac731d585b73df99452dc272c18ce9b.jpg"
]
|
Says President Joe Biden sparked a migrant caravan from Honduras and questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops at the inauguration. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden had been in office only for a few hours when claims began to circulate about how he had already failed in his new role. 'It has been a terrible start for 'the big guy,'' Restoration PAC, a super PAC based in suburban Chicago, posted on Facebook on Jan. 20, following the late-morning presidential inauguration. An accompanying image read: '4 Biden failures before taking office: Sparked an immigration crisis - migrant caravan from Honduras is moving towards the US border; questioned the loyalty of US troops in Washington D.C.; invoked race during the U.S. Capitol riot - said BLM would be treated differently by police; calls for unity but goes along with the divisive impeachment.' For this fact-check, we focused on the first two points. The latter two are accurate: Biden said Black Lives Matter protesters would have been treated differently than U.S. Capitol rioters were, and his assessment is supported by several examinations that compared police responses to summer protests for racial justice with the riot. And Biden supports the impeachment trial, which he has said he thinks the Senate can juggle with its usual business. 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.) As a super PAC, Restoration PAC has few limits on fundraising or spending to advocate for or against political candidates. In the 2020 election cycle, Restoration PAC spent $18.7 million on communications to oppose Democrats, and $1 million on communications supporting Republicans. 'Sparked an immigration crisis' The claim that Biden 'sparked an immigration crisis' draws a connection between his actions and a migrant caravan from Honduras that the Facebook post says 'is moving toward the U.S. border.' The migrants were attempting to flee Honduras, beset for years by poverty and gang violence and now ravaged by COVID-19. The already desperate conditions in the country were worsened by two major hurricanes in November that left many people without jobs or homes. By the time the Facebook post was published, though, the caravan had already dissipated in Guatemala, stopped by roadblocks where Guatemalan forces used tear gas and batons to turn back the group of thousands. It is not uncommon for migration to occur around the time of U.S. elections and transitions of power, NBC News reported, citing spikes in late 2016, early 2017 and 2018 around the time of the midterm elections. Opponents of Biden's immigration plans have sought to link his proposals to the caravan's movement. U.S. Rep Ken Buck, R-Colo., tweeted a video on Jan. 20 of the Honduran migrants clashing with Guatemalan soldiers, writing, 'This is what happens when you announce plans to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Joe Biden's open borders plan has consequences.' But a Biden proposal to provide a route to citizenship for immigrants illegally in the country would apply only to people who were already in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021, to deter migrants from moving toward the U.S. border. 'Questioned the loyalty of US troops in Washington, D.C.' The Facebook post's claim that Biden 'questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops in Washington, D.C.' does not include examples or specifics. It likely is related to the decision to vet all National Guard troops assigned to the city for the inauguration, after concerns about extremism and insider threats. PolitiFact did not find any published comments from Biden or his representatives about the vetting process or the loyalty of the National Guard. The screening resulted in 12 National Guard members being removed from inaugural duties. Two of them had made extremist statements about the event, the Associated Press reported. 'This type of vetting often takes place by law enforcement for significant security events,' said Christopher Miller, the Acting Secretary of Defense under Trump, in a Jan. 18 statement. 'However, in this case the scope of military participation is unique.' Regarding the scope, 25,000 members of the National Guard were deployed for Biden's inauguration, compared with more than 7,000 for Trump's 2017 inauguration. The National Guard presence at inaugural events was beefed up following a Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and the background checks were added after the discovery that ex-military members had participated in the riot. Nine of the people arrested for participating in the riot were former U.S. military members, ABC News reported. One of the five people who died as a result of the riot was a U.S. Air Force veteran shot by police as she climbed through a window near the House chamber. We contacted Restoration PAC for comment but did not receive a reply. | Our ruling A Facebook post attacking Biden's pre-presidential 'failures' blamed him for a migrant caravan from Honduras and said he questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops in Washington. Biden's proposal to provide a route to citizenship for immigrants is only applicable to people who were already in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021. The caravan that had been headed for the U.S. border disbanded. PolitiFact did not find any evidence that Biden questioned the loyalty of U.S. troops in Washington. The decision to vet the National Guard members deployed for the inauguration followed the discovery that ex-military members had participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. We rate these claims Mostly False. | [
"100863-proof-00-2ac731d585b73df99452dc272c18ce9b.jpg"
]
|
Republicans in Nevada found 'at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud. ... Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's campaign and Republicans in Nevada are questioning the integrity of the 2020 election, claiming that there 'appear' to be thousands of people who voted illegally. 'Our lawyers just sent a criminal referral to (U.S. Attorney General Bill) Barr regarding at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud,' the Nevada Republican Party tweeted Nov. 5. 'We expect that number to grow substantially. Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.' 'In Nevada, there appear to be thousands of individuals who improperly cast mail ballots,' Matt Morgan, general counsel for Trump's reelection campaign, similarly said in a statement Nov. 6. PolitiFact reached out to Trump's campaign, a law office representing the campaign, and to the Nevada Republican Party seeking information. We did not hear back. At this point, the claims are unproven. Lawsuit filed against against officials in Nevada, letter sent to Justice Department A lawsuit filed Nov. 5 against Nevada's secretary of state and the Clark County registrar of voters alleges that 'irregularities have plagued the election in Clark County.' Clark County is Nevada's most populous county, is home to Las Vegas and has the state's highest number of registered Democrats. The lawsuit claims that there were 'over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots,' and that ballots were cast on behalf of deceased voters. It does not include evidence to back those claims. The lawsuit, which challenges the county's use of a machine as a step in signature verification, was filed on behalf of a Nevada resident, candidate committees for two Republicans running for Congress, and another person identified as a credentialed member of the media. 'We are not aware of any improper ballots that are being processed,' Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria said during a press conference Nov. 5. Lawyers for Trump's campaign sent a letter to Clark County's counsel, saying, 'We have confirmed that thousands of votes have been cast improperly. Indeed, we have initially identified 3,062 voters who moved from Nevada before the election but still cast ballots in this election.' The lawyers said they cross-referenced the list of general election voters with publicly available change of address records. The attorneys sent a similar letter to Barr, the U.S. attorney general. However, a mismatch in those records doesn't necessarily mean that a vote was cast illegally. The ACLU of Nevada said that an American who moved within 30 days before an election has a right to vote in a presidential race in their new state of residence, or may cast a ballot in their previous state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot. A spokesperson for Nevada Secretary of State Barbara K. Cegavske, a Republican, told PolitiFact that the ACLU statement is accurate and also applies to Nevada. Trump's lawyers produced a list of voters who allegedly voted improperly. But Jon Ralston, editor of The Nevada Independent, a nonprofit news organization, noted in a Nov. 6 tweet that the list includes Nevadans in the military who voted absentee. 'Many on list sent to the DOJ have these postal codes: AE, AA and AP: Armed Forces Europe, Armed Forces Americas and Armed Forces Pacific,' Ralston said. The list does not include voters' names, but does show other identifying information. It includes the city, state, and zip code where one voter moved from, and the city, state, and zip code where the voter moved. For instance, the first page of the list says that 'vote cast record 28' moved from Las Vegas, Nev., and lists as the new city 'FPO' and as the new state 'AE.' The Defense Department says that 'FPO' stands for Fleet Post Office, and is associated with Navy installations and ships. The U.S. Postal Service says that 'AE' should be used as the 'state' abbreviation for Armed Forces in Europe. Nevadans who go to college out-of-state and other people who leave the state temporarily can also get a ballot at a new address. So the list produced by Trump's lawyers on its own does not prove whether the identified people cast a vote illegally. | Our ruling Nevada Republicans said they found 'at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud. ... Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.' The GOP lawyers issued a list that they say shows more than 3,000 people who were no longer living in Clark County by the time they cast their ballots. The list alone does not prove a violation of the law. People who move within 30 days before an election can cast a vote in their new state, or in their prior state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot. A Nevadan who goes to another state for college can also request a ballot. The list from Trump's lawyers also included addresses for Americans serving overseas in the military. The burden of proof is on the speaker making the claim. The information released so far by Trump's team does not confirm their claim. We rate the claim False. RELATED: Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim about illegal votes This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100865-proof-23-02132fc3737137e636c6a66a556a15aa.jpg"
]
|
Republicans in Nevada found 'at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud. ... Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's campaign and Republicans in Nevada are questioning the integrity of the 2020 election, claiming that there 'appear' to be thousands of people who voted illegally. 'Our lawyers just sent a criminal referral to (U.S. Attorney General Bill) Barr regarding at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud,' the Nevada Republican Party tweeted Nov. 5. 'We expect that number to grow substantially. Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.' 'In Nevada, there appear to be thousands of individuals who improperly cast mail ballots,' Matt Morgan, general counsel for Trump's reelection campaign, similarly said in a statement Nov. 6. PolitiFact reached out to Trump's campaign, a law office representing the campaign, and to the Nevada Republican Party seeking information. We did not hear back. At this point, the claims are unproven. Lawsuit filed against against officials in Nevada, letter sent to Justice Department A lawsuit filed Nov. 5 against Nevada's secretary of state and the Clark County registrar of voters alleges that 'irregularities have plagued the election in Clark County.' Clark County is Nevada's most populous county, is home to Las Vegas and has the state's highest number of registered Democrats. The lawsuit claims that there were 'over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots,' and that ballots were cast on behalf of deceased voters. It does not include evidence to back those claims. The lawsuit, which challenges the county's use of a machine as a step in signature verification, was filed on behalf of a Nevada resident, candidate committees for two Republicans running for Congress, and another person identified as a credentialed member of the media. 'We are not aware of any improper ballots that are being processed,' Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria said during a press conference Nov. 5. Lawyers for Trump's campaign sent a letter to Clark County's counsel, saying, 'We have confirmed that thousands of votes have been cast improperly. Indeed, we have initially identified 3,062 voters who moved from Nevada before the election but still cast ballots in this election.' The lawyers said they cross-referenced the list of general election voters with publicly available change of address records. The attorneys sent a similar letter to Barr, the U.S. attorney general. However, a mismatch in those records doesn't necessarily mean that a vote was cast illegally. The ACLU of Nevada said that an American who moved within 30 days before an election has a right to vote in a presidential race in their new state of residence, or may cast a ballot in their previous state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot. A spokesperson for Nevada Secretary of State Barbara K. Cegavske, a Republican, told PolitiFact that the ACLU statement is accurate and also applies to Nevada. Trump's lawyers produced a list of voters who allegedly voted improperly. But Jon Ralston, editor of The Nevada Independent, a nonprofit news organization, noted in a Nov. 6 tweet that the list includes Nevadans in the military who voted absentee. 'Many on list sent to the DOJ have these postal codes: AE, AA and AP: Armed Forces Europe, Armed Forces Americas and Armed Forces Pacific,' Ralston said. The list does not include voters' names, but does show other identifying information. It includes the city, state, and zip code where one voter moved from, and the city, state, and zip code where the voter moved. For instance, the first page of the list says that 'vote cast record 28' moved from Las Vegas, Nev., and lists as the new city 'FPO' and as the new state 'AE.' The Defense Department says that 'FPO' stands for Fleet Post Office, and is associated with Navy installations and ships. The U.S. Postal Service says that 'AE' should be used as the 'state' abbreviation for Armed Forces in Europe. Nevadans who go to college out-of-state and other people who leave the state temporarily can also get a ballot at a new address. So the list produced by Trump's lawyers on its own does not prove whether the identified people cast a vote illegally. | Our ruling Nevada Republicans said they found 'at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud. ... Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.' The GOP lawyers issued a list that they say shows more than 3,000 people who were no longer living in Clark County by the time they cast their ballots. The list alone does not prove a violation of the law. People who move within 30 days before an election can cast a vote in their new state, or in their prior state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot. A Nevadan who goes to another state for college can also request a ballot. The list from Trump's lawyers also included addresses for Americans serving overseas in the military. The burden of proof is on the speaker making the claim. The information released so far by Trump's team does not confirm their claim. We rate the claim False. RELATED: Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim about illegal votes This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100865-proof-23-02132fc3737137e636c6a66a556a15aa.jpg"
]
|
Republicans in Nevada found 'at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud. ... Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's campaign and Republicans in Nevada are questioning the integrity of the 2020 election, claiming that there 'appear' to be thousands of people who voted illegally. 'Our lawyers just sent a criminal referral to (U.S. Attorney General Bill) Barr regarding at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud,' the Nevada Republican Party tweeted Nov. 5. 'We expect that number to grow substantially. Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.' 'In Nevada, there appear to be thousands of individuals who improperly cast mail ballots,' Matt Morgan, general counsel for Trump's reelection campaign, similarly said in a statement Nov. 6. PolitiFact reached out to Trump's campaign, a law office representing the campaign, and to the Nevada Republican Party seeking information. We did not hear back. At this point, the claims are unproven. Lawsuit filed against against officials in Nevada, letter sent to Justice Department A lawsuit filed Nov. 5 against Nevada's secretary of state and the Clark County registrar of voters alleges that 'irregularities have plagued the election in Clark County.' Clark County is Nevada's most populous county, is home to Las Vegas and has the state's highest number of registered Democrats. The lawsuit claims that there were 'over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots,' and that ballots were cast on behalf of deceased voters. It does not include evidence to back those claims. The lawsuit, which challenges the county's use of a machine as a step in signature verification, was filed on behalf of a Nevada resident, candidate committees for two Republicans running for Congress, and another person identified as a credentialed member of the media. 'We are not aware of any improper ballots that are being processed,' Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria said during a press conference Nov. 5. Lawyers for Trump's campaign sent a letter to Clark County's counsel, saying, 'We have confirmed that thousands of votes have been cast improperly. Indeed, we have initially identified 3,062 voters who moved from Nevada before the election but still cast ballots in this election.' The lawyers said they cross-referenced the list of general election voters with publicly available change of address records. The attorneys sent a similar letter to Barr, the U.S. attorney general. However, a mismatch in those records doesn't necessarily mean that a vote was cast illegally. The ACLU of Nevada said that an American who moved within 30 days before an election has a right to vote in a presidential race in their new state of residence, or may cast a ballot in their previous state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot. A spokesperson for Nevada Secretary of State Barbara K. Cegavske, a Republican, told PolitiFact that the ACLU statement is accurate and also applies to Nevada. Trump's lawyers produced a list of voters who allegedly voted improperly. But Jon Ralston, editor of The Nevada Independent, a nonprofit news organization, noted in a Nov. 6 tweet that the list includes Nevadans in the military who voted absentee. 'Many on list sent to the DOJ have these postal codes: AE, AA and AP: Armed Forces Europe, Armed Forces Americas and Armed Forces Pacific,' Ralston said. The list does not include voters' names, but does show other identifying information. It includes the city, state, and zip code where one voter moved from, and the city, state, and zip code where the voter moved. For instance, the first page of the list says that 'vote cast record 28' moved from Las Vegas, Nev., and lists as the new city 'FPO' and as the new state 'AE.' The Defense Department says that 'FPO' stands for Fleet Post Office, and is associated with Navy installations and ships. The U.S. Postal Service says that 'AE' should be used as the 'state' abbreviation for Armed Forces in Europe. Nevadans who go to college out-of-state and other people who leave the state temporarily can also get a ballot at a new address. So the list produced by Trump's lawyers on its own does not prove whether the identified people cast a vote illegally. | Our ruling Nevada Republicans said they found 'at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud. ... Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.' The GOP lawyers issued a list that they say shows more than 3,000 people who were no longer living in Clark County by the time they cast their ballots. The list alone does not prove a violation of the law. People who move within 30 days before an election can cast a vote in their new state, or in their prior state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot. A Nevadan who goes to another state for college can also request a ballot. The list from Trump's lawyers also included addresses for Americans serving overseas in the military. The burden of proof is on the speaker making the claim. The information released so far by Trump's team does not confirm their claim. We rate the claim False. RELATED: Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim about illegal votes This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"100865-proof-23-02132fc3737137e636c6a66a556a15aa.jpg"
]
|
'CDC just cancelled Halloween for kids. | Contradiction | The coronavirus has killed more than 200,000 people in the United States and hampered American lives in ways big and small. As the holiday season approaches, experts and news stories are already advising people on the best ways to stay safe in the coming months. But one holiday, fast approaching, has been called off, according to a recent Facebook post. 'CDC just cancelled Halloween for kids, but BLM & Antifa riots and protests... they are of course fine. This 2 standards of 'covid safety' is ridiculous,' reads a screenshot of an Oct. 12 tweet from Amber Smith, the former deputy assistant to then-U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a page on its website dedicated to the holidays. But it is not publishing any decrees there - just advice. 'As many people in the United States begin to plan for fall and winter holiday celebrations, CDC offers the following considerations to help protect individuals, their families, friends, and communities from COVID-19,' the page says. Many traditional Halloween activities can be high-risk for spreading viruses, including the coronavirus, according to the CDC, and anyone who may have COVID-19 or has been exposed to someone with COVID-19 shouldn't participate in in-person Halloween plans or hand out candy to trick-or-treaters. But, the agency offers ideas for lower risk activities that could be safe alternatives to, say, attending a crowded, indoor Halloween party. These safer activities include: carving or decorating pumpkins outside at a safe distance with neighbors or friends, decorating your home, doing a Halloween scavenger hunt, and having a virtual Halloween costume contest. The CDC also lists moderate risk activities and high risk activities. Moderate risk activities include attending a costume party outdoors where people wear face coverings and stay physically distant and putting out individually-wrapped candy bags for families to grab while trick-or-treating. If you're planning to prepare such candy bags, the CDC advises washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds beforehand and placing the bags somewhere families can maintain physical distance, like at the end of a driveway or the edge of a yard. High risk activities include traditional trick-or-treating, where treats are handed to children who go door to door, or going to an indoor haunted house. So the CDC has provided guidance on how to celebrate Halloween safely - it hasn't canceled the holiday. It also didn't rubberstamp racial justice protests that followed the May death of George Floyd, a Black man who died as a white police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck in Minneapolis. In June, CDC Director Robert Redfield told lawmakers that protesters should get tested for COVID-19 and that demonstrations could cause the disease to spread. Later that month, the CDC issued new guidelines concerning the risk of spreading COVID-19 at large gatherings. The agency recommended organizers of large events that involve shouting, chanting or singing 'strongly encourage' the use of face coverings. Like the CDC's advice related to the holidays, these guidelines were not mandates. 'They are not regulations. They are not commands,' said Jay Butler, the CDC's deputy director of infectious diseases. 'But they are recommendations or even suggestions (on) how you can have a gathering that will keep people as safe as possible.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'CDC just cancelled Halloween for kids. | Contradiction | The coronavirus has killed more than 200,000 people in the United States and hampered American lives in ways big and small. As the holiday season approaches, experts and news stories are already advising people on the best ways to stay safe in the coming months. But one holiday, fast approaching, has been called off, according to a recent Facebook post. 'CDC just cancelled Halloween for kids, but BLM & Antifa riots and protests... they are of course fine. This 2 standards of 'covid safety' is ridiculous,' reads a screenshot of an Oct. 12 tweet from Amber Smith, the former deputy assistant to then-U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a page on its website dedicated to the holidays. But it is not publishing any decrees there - just advice. 'As many people in the United States begin to plan for fall and winter holiday celebrations, CDC offers the following considerations to help protect individuals, their families, friends, and communities from COVID-19,' the page says. Many traditional Halloween activities can be high-risk for spreading viruses, including the coronavirus, according to the CDC, and anyone who may have COVID-19 or has been exposed to someone with COVID-19 shouldn't participate in in-person Halloween plans or hand out candy to trick-or-treaters. But, the agency offers ideas for lower risk activities that could be safe alternatives to, say, attending a crowded, indoor Halloween party. These safer activities include: carving or decorating pumpkins outside at a safe distance with neighbors or friends, decorating your home, doing a Halloween scavenger hunt, and having a virtual Halloween costume contest. The CDC also lists moderate risk activities and high risk activities. Moderate risk activities include attending a costume party outdoors where people wear face coverings and stay physically distant and putting out individually-wrapped candy bags for families to grab while trick-or-treating. If you're planning to prepare such candy bags, the CDC advises washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds beforehand and placing the bags somewhere families can maintain physical distance, like at the end of a driveway or the edge of a yard. High risk activities include traditional trick-or-treating, where treats are handed to children who go door to door, or going to an indoor haunted house. So the CDC has provided guidance on how to celebrate Halloween safely - it hasn't canceled the holiday. It also didn't rubberstamp racial justice protests that followed the May death of George Floyd, a Black man who died as a white police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck in Minneapolis. In June, CDC Director Robert Redfield told lawmakers that protesters should get tested for COVID-19 and that demonstrations could cause the disease to spread. Later that month, the CDC issued new guidelines concerning the risk of spreading COVID-19 at large gatherings. The agency recommended organizers of large events that involve shouting, chanting or singing 'strongly encourage' the use of face coverings. Like the CDC's advice related to the holidays, these guidelines were not mandates. 'They are not regulations. They are not commands,' said Jay Butler, the CDC's deputy director of infectious diseases. 'But they are recommendations or even suggestions (on) how you can have a gathering that will keep people as safe as possible.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest. | Contradiction | An attack on President Donald Trump's emergency aid to farmers to offset the impact of trade wars tries to put it in a bad light in contrast with President Barack Obama's bailout of General Motors. It raises a fair question about repayment, but fudges the figures and the facts. The attack, made in a post on Facebook, claims: 'Fact: Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest.' 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.) Trump and the farmers Amid a trade war with China, the Trump administration in 2018 authorized $12 billion in payments to American farmers who were hit by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on U.S. agriculture. In 2019, the administration added $16 billion. That's a total of $28 billion in direct aid, which won't need to be repaid. The GM bailout was different in both size and structure. Obama and General Motors Figuring out the cost of GM's rescue is complex. The auto industry bailout effort began before Obama took office with a pair of emergency loans from President George W. Bush's administration for GM and Chrysler through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. With hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, the new Obama administration in 2009 stepped forward with more TARP assistance, including critical debtor-in-possession financing to usher GM through bankruptcy. With much of its debt converted to stock during those proceedings, the U.S. Treasury emerged with a 60% ownership stake in the reorganized company, which went public again in November 2010. By the time GM sold all of its shares in 2013, the taxpayers had lost $11.2 billion on the bailout. In all, the Bush and Obama administrations invested about $50 billion of TARP money into GM. But ultimately, only $6.7 billion was in loans, which GM repaid, with interest and five years ahead of schedule. The goal of the government investment 'was never to make a profit, but to help save the American auto industry, and by any measure that effort was successful,' a U.S. Treasury Department spokesman said at the time. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest.' The Trump administration's assistance to farmers who have been hurt in the trade war with China is $28 billion - about half the size of the Treasury's $50 billion bailout of General Motors, not twice the size. Only $6.7 billion of the bailout ended up as loans, which GM did pay back. But in the end, the government lost $11.2 billion in the bailout. Farmers are not expected to repay their aid. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
'Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest. | Contradiction | An attack on President Donald Trump's emergency aid to farmers to offset the impact of trade wars tries to put it in a bad light in contrast with President Barack Obama's bailout of General Motors. It raises a fair question about repayment, but fudges the figures and the facts. The attack, made in a post on Facebook, claims: 'Fact: Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest.' 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.) Trump and the farmers Amid a trade war with China, the Trump administration in 2018 authorized $12 billion in payments to American farmers who were hit by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on U.S. agriculture. In 2019, the administration added $16 billion. That's a total of $28 billion in direct aid, which won't need to be repaid. The GM bailout was different in both size and structure. Obama and General Motors Figuring out the cost of GM's rescue is complex. The auto industry bailout effort began before Obama took office with a pair of emergency loans from President George W. Bush's administration for GM and Chrysler through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. With hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, the new Obama administration in 2009 stepped forward with more TARP assistance, including critical debtor-in-possession financing to usher GM through bankruptcy. With much of its debt converted to stock during those proceedings, the U.S. Treasury emerged with a 60% ownership stake in the reorganized company, which went public again in November 2010. By the time GM sold all of its shares in 2013, the taxpayers had lost $11.2 billion on the bailout. In all, the Bush and Obama administrations invested about $50 billion of TARP money into GM. But ultimately, only $6.7 billion was in loans, which GM repaid, with interest and five years ahead of schedule. The goal of the government investment 'was never to make a profit, but to help save the American auto industry, and by any measure that effort was successful,' a U.S. Treasury Department spokesman said at the time. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest.' The Trump administration's assistance to farmers who have been hurt in the trade war with China is $28 billion - about half the size of the Treasury's $50 billion bailout of General Motors, not twice the size. Only $6.7 billion of the bailout ended up as loans, which GM did pay back. But in the end, the government lost $11.2 billion in the bailout. Farmers are not expected to repay their aid. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
'Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest. | Contradiction | An attack on President Donald Trump's emergency aid to farmers to offset the impact of trade wars tries to put it in a bad light in contrast with President Barack Obama's bailout of General Motors. It raises a fair question about repayment, but fudges the figures and the facts. The attack, made in a post on Facebook, claims: 'Fact: Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest.' 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.) Trump and the farmers Amid a trade war with China, the Trump administration in 2018 authorized $12 billion in payments to American farmers who were hit by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on U.S. agriculture. In 2019, the administration added $16 billion. That's a total of $28 billion in direct aid, which won't need to be repaid. The GM bailout was different in both size and structure. Obama and General Motors Figuring out the cost of GM's rescue is complex. The auto industry bailout effort began before Obama took office with a pair of emergency loans from President George W. Bush's administration for GM and Chrysler through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. With hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, the new Obama administration in 2009 stepped forward with more TARP assistance, including critical debtor-in-possession financing to usher GM through bankruptcy. With much of its debt converted to stock during those proceedings, the U.S. Treasury emerged with a 60% ownership stake in the reorganized company, which went public again in November 2010. By the time GM sold all of its shares in 2013, the taxpayers had lost $11.2 billion on the bailout. In all, the Bush and Obama administrations invested about $50 billion of TARP money into GM. But ultimately, only $6.7 billion was in loans, which GM repaid, with interest and five years ahead of schedule. The goal of the government investment 'was never to make a profit, but to help save the American auto industry, and by any measure that effort was successful,' a U.S. Treasury Department spokesman said at the time. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'Trump's farmer bailout is now twice the size of Obama's GM bailout. The big difference is GM paid their bailout back - with interest.' The Trump administration's assistance to farmers who have been hurt in the trade war with China is $28 billion - about half the size of the Treasury's $50 billion bailout of General Motors, not twice the size. Only $6.7 billion of the bailout ended up as loans, which GM did pay back. But in the end, the government lost $11.2 billion in the bailout. Farmers are not expected to repay their aid. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
A video shows ballots being changed in Maryland. | Contradiction | A video spreading on social media purports to show voter fraud caught on camera: an election worker in Maryland changing a ballot. But election officials in Maryland say that's just not true. 'Ballots being changed in Maryland cough on a Yahoo livestream,' reads the description in one Facebook post of a video that shows a man opening a ballot, looking around, and then seemingly writing on it. On YouTube, the same video - titled '4chan catches voter fraud on LIVESTREAM' - had nearly 100,000 views as of Oct. 22. The claim apparently originated on 4chan, an online message board that is a known source of online disinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories. 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.) Elections officials in Maryland's Montgomery County said a thorough investigation revealed no evidence of fraud or misconduct, the Washington Post reported. Kevin Karpinski, a lawyer for the county's elections board, told board members on Oct. 21 that the voter fraud allegation is unfounded and that he interviewed the worker in the video, reviewed every ballot he helped sort, and spoke to other volunteers who were working at the same time, the Post said. Gilberto Zelaya, a spokesperson for the board of elections, told a local CBS News affiliate that the video clip was apparently taken from a live Facebook feed posted by YahooFinance. Three credentialed media organizations had visited the ballot canvassing operation at the Plum Gar Community Center in Germantown on Oct. 20. What does the video actually show? Karpinski said the worker was darkening an oval that had been filled in too lightly to ensure ballot scanners would recognize it, according to the Post. It's a protocol that has been in place since he started working for the election board in 2003 to try to ensure as many eligible ballots as possible are counted. Workers are supposed to ask other volunteers or supervisors if they're unsure whether an oval needs to be darkened, a practice that's easier when canvassers sit next to each other. This year they're sitting 6 feet apart because of the coronavirus. Karpinski said the worker 'followed the appropriate policies and protocols.' We rate these posts False. | We rate these posts False. | []
|
'While he was president, President Trump never encouraged Americans to get vaccinated. | Contradiction | One day after former President Donald Trump urged Americans to 'go get your shot,' the New York Times reported that he and first lady Melania Trump had quietly received their own COVID-19 vaccines on their way out of the White House in January. The news rankled MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who criticized Trump as having failed to promote the vaccines during his time in the White House. 'While he was president, President Trump never encouraged Americans to get vaccinated,' Maddow said March 1 on her prime-time TV show. 'Now we know that he himself took the vaccine in secret and never told anyone. What possible benefit was there to him to keep that secret from the public?' 'I mean, think about all the good that could have done,' Maddow continued, citing recent polling that showed vaccine hesitancy is disproportionately high among Republican voters. Trump had been a vaccine skeptic for years before he entered the White House. His under-the-radar vaccination marked a divergence from the example set by other officials who got their vaccines in front of TV cameras, including President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence. But is it true that as president, Trump 'never encouraged Americans to get vaccinated,' as Maddow claimed? In short, no. Trump's public comments about the vaccines were typically in reference to his administration's efforts to fast-track their development. But in several cases, he touted the life-saving potential of the vaccines. And in a tweet, Trump gave the encouragement Maddow said he never did during his time in the White House. 'The Vaccine and the Vaccine rollout are getting the best of reviews,' Trump tweeted Dec. 17, one day before the Food and Drug Administration cleared a second vaccine for use. 'Moving along really well. Get those 'shots' everyone!' A screenshot of former President Donald Trump's Dec. 17 tweet about COVID-19 vaccines. (Factba.se) MSNBC did not offer comment for this fact-check. But after PolitiFact reached out, Maddow showed Trump's December tweet on air as part of a correction. 'I thought when we reported last night that while he was president, he had actually never told Americans to get vaccinated,' Maddow said March 2. 'It turns out he did say, in one tweet in December, that everybody should get their shots.' What Trump said, and what he didn't say Maddow's original comments echoed the New York Times' report about Trump's private vaccination. The newspaper wrote that Trump's 'go get your shot' comment at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 28 was 'the first time he encouraged people to go get vaccinated,' and that 'he never publicly encouraged people to take it while he was in office.' That is not accurate. The New York Times did not respond to requests for comment. PolitiFact reviewed months of Trump's vaccine comments using Factba.se, an interactive transcript website that tracked his public statements throughout his presidency. Trump's 'get those 'shots' everyone' comment from December was a specific example we found of him publicly and explicitly urging people to get vaccinated. But the former president signaled his support in many other ways, expressing hope that the vaccines, once tested and approved, would end the pandemic and help bring about a return to normal life. For months leading up to the arrival of the first vaccines, Trump feverishly claimed credit for their quick development. At campaign rallies, he told supporters a vote for Biden would 'delay the vaccine,' while a vote for him would result in a vaccine to 'quickly eradicate the virus.' As clinical trials were getting underway, Trump said in a September press conference that he 'encourage(d) everybody to enroll, as many people as we can,' in the trials. The vaccines, he said, should go first to frontline workers, the elderly and people with underlying medical conditions. They would not be mandated, he said, but they would be widely available. Trump attended a White House summit celebrating the expected approval of the first vaccines. 'Every American who wants the vaccine will be able to get the vaccine,' Trump said Dec. 8. Even as he repeatedly claimed, falsely, that the U.S. was rounding the corner on the pandemic without vaccines, Trump continued to tout the progress on development, saying at one October rally: 'We have unbelievable vaccines that are coming out real soon.' By the time the first vaccine was cleared for use, Trump had lost his reelection bid, and his public comments focused more on promoting false claims about the election. A few weeks later, following the U.S. Capitol riot, Trump was barred from Twitter, his preferred communication tool. Top government officials publicly urged him to encourage people to get the vaccine, and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany promised he would do so because 'he wants to see all Americans get this vaccine.' But behind the scenes, Trump declined to be the face of the vaccination campaign, instead letting Pence handle the load, the Associated Press reported. Trump was vague about when he would be inoculated, writing in a Dec. 14 tweet, 'I am not scheduled to take the vaccine, but look forward to doing so at the appropriate time.' But Trump also celebrated the rollout of the vaccines on Twitter. He repeatedly said that the vaccine was a 'miracle,' that it was 'safe and effective,' and that it would end the pandemic. 'It will save millions of lives, and soon end the pandemic once and for all,' Trump said Dec. 11, the day the FDA authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for use. 'These vaccines are also very safe,' Trump continued. 'American citizens participated in clinical trials that were far larger than normal, and had no serious side effects. The dedicated and independent experts at the FDA meticulously studied the results of the trials, and it has now passed the gold standard of safety.' In remarks toward the end of the year, Trump said the world would benefit from the vaccines and held up the rollout as a historic medical achievement. Some health experts said Trump could have done more. Peter Hotez, from the Baylor College of Medicine, said on CNN that if Trump had regularly encouraged Americans to take the vaccine, it would have made a 'big difference,' especially among his followers, who have relatively high vaccine skepticism, polling shows. 'If the president had been out there touting the impact of vaccines, we would have melted away a lot of that chunk of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusal, I believe,' Hotez said. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said he wasn't aware that Trump got vaccinated. He called it a 'lost opportunity' to persuade vaccine hesitant people to get shots. 'That would've been an extraordinarily good opportunity to get a signal to the people who would clearly have listened to him the way they listened to him in many other ways,' said Fauci, who got his own shot on camera. 'He has a great deal of influence.' | Our ruling Maddow said, 'While he was president, President Trump never encouraged Americans to get vaccinated.' Trump expressed confidence in the vaccines and vaccination in many different ways - on Twitter and in public remarks - touting their life-saving potential and saying they would be safe and available to all. We rate Maddow's claim False. UPDATED, March 4, 2:26 p.m.: This fact-check was updated to reflect Maddow's on-air correction on March 2. The rating is not changed. | [
"100910-proof-17-trump_vaccine_tweet.jpg",
"100910-proof-26-d504de752bf4c5703f91d929988cf9f8.jpg"
]
|
'The Biden Administration is buying Kamala Harris' book with our taxpayer dollars. | Contradiction | On April 23, the New York Post reported that migrant children routed from the U.S.-Mexico border to a shelter in Long Beach, Calif., will be given a copy of Vice President Kamala Harris' 2019 children's book called 'Superheroes are Everywhere.' The story, which ran on the Post's cover the next day, didn't cite a source; it just showed a Reuters photo of a cot that had a copy of the book on it. On April 27, the story link no longer worked and redirected readers to the Post's homepage. Later that day, a revised version of the story was again on the Post's website with an editor's note that said 'the original version of this article said migrant kids were getting Harris' book in a welcome kit, but has been updated to note that only one known copy of the book was given to a child.' Laura Italiano, the reporter who wrote the article, also resigned, saying that she was 'ordered to write' an incorrect story and that she 'failed to push back hard enough.' But claims about the book continue to spread online. 'So the Biden administration is buying Kamala Harris' book with our taxpayer money,' read one Facebook post that shared the Post cover. 'Seems to be a conflict of interest. Who's okay with Vice President Harris making money off this situation?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the White House and the city of Long Beach, which is temporarily hosting migrant children who are staying at an U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shelter there. Kevin Lee, a spokesperson for the city, told PolitiFact that a copy of Harris' book was donated as part of a citywide book and toy drive organized by the city of Long Beach and its convention and visitors bureau to support the children. 'The single book you reference is one of hundreds of various books that have already been donated,' Lee said, adding that it wasn't purchased by Long Beach or the federal government. On April 25, the convention and visitors bureau tweeted that 'the Long Beach community is rallying around the book and toy drive for migrant youth' and thanked 'the many donors who have dropped off new toys and books.' A website for the toy and book drive says that the city is accepting English and Spanish language books suitable for infants to young adults. Sabrina Singh, a White House spokesperson for Harris, told us that 'the office of the vice president was not aware that her children's book was donated.' We've found nothing credible to suggest otherwise, and no evidence that there is a campaign to give every child a copy of the vice president's book on the taxpayer's dime. As the Washington Post reported in its fact-check of Sen. Tom Cotton and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel - both of whom echoed claims that Harris was profiting off a surge of immigrants at taxpayer expense - 'this is a good example of how misinformation spreads on right-wing media and gets amplified by Republican leaders.' We rate this claim False. Update, April 28, 2021: This story has been updated to include additional information about the New York Post story. The rating is unchanged. | We rate this claim False. Update, April 28, 2021: This story has been updated to include additional information about the New York Post story. The rating is unchanged. | []
|
'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns. | Contradiction | GOP recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested - without evidence - that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program, one that helps people with disabilities cast their ballot. On Aug. 19, the conservative talk show host tweeted a Washington Examiner article with the headline, 'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns.' But election and disability rights experts say the claim Elder promoted is baseless. What's more, the article he tweeted doesn't cite anyone who raised concerns about the specific program. Given the intense focus on election security, we set out on a fact check. How Does The Program For Voters With Disabilities Work? The article points to a California election program called Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail, or RABVM. It's designed to help people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and dexterity issues, vote privately and independently. Without the program, these voters often rely on others to help them read and fill out a ballot. The system is also used by military and overseas voters. Certain counties have offered RABVM since 2017, while recent legislation required all counties to offer it starting in January 2020. Registered voters must apply through their county elections office to take part. Once accepted, they receive a unique access code to download a ballot allowing them to read and mark it using their own assistive technology device, according to Jenna Dresner, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections in the state. The program does not allow voters to submit their ballot online, nor does it allow them to print out a blank ballot. Voters using RABVM must print out a single completed ballot and then return it in a vote-by-mail envelope or in-person. 'When [RABVM voters] log into the system with their unique credentials, they are temporarily disconnected from the Internet, so no votes can be submitted online or emailed,' Dresner explained. 'This IS NOT internet voting,' reads a Disability Rights California blog post from July about the program. Newsom, Democratic Lawmakers Expand RAVBM Program Ahead of last year's presidential election and again before this year's recall, Democratic state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily expanded the remote accessible voter program to allow all registered voters in California to participate. Both times, they cited health concerns about voting in-person during the pandemic. Last year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 860 to require all counties send out vote-by-mail ballots. The bill also included a provision expanding RABVM. This past June, state lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 152 to again temporarily expand the remote accessible voting program to allow all registered voters to use it after applying through their county elections office. Dresner said that decision was also made following health concerns about voting in-person. 'The elections official shall permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, regardless of whether the voter is a voter with disabilities or a military or overseas voter,' reads the legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on June 28. SB 152 temporarily changes portions of the state elections code in what a Sacramento Bee news article described as 'an effort to benefit Gov. Gavin Newsom,' including speeding up the recall timeline. Republican state lawmakers opposed the bill, saying Democrats were 'changing the playing field,' according to the article. The bill would repeal the provisions, including the expansion of RABVM, on Jan. 1, 2022. RABVM votes accounted for 0.14% of California's total votes cast in the 2020 general election, or 24,248, according to figures from the Secretary of State's Office. The total votes cast statewide was more than 17.7 million. Election, Disability Rights Groups Say Program Not A Security Threat Kim Alexander, president of the advocacy group California Voter Foundation, said she is not aware of any security issues tied to the RAVBM program. 'People may have valid questions about it since it does use the Internet to deliver a ballot to a voter. But it does not use the Internet to return the ballot,' Alexander wrote in an email. 'The voter must print out the RAVBM ballot after making his or her selections and then put it in a [vote-by-mail] envelope they have signed just like any other vote-by-mail ballot.' Paul Spencer, an attorney with Disability Rights California, who specializes in voting issues, said 'there aren't security concerns.' Spencer said the same safeguards used to prevent fraud with traditional vote-by-mail ballots are used for RABVM. Voters, for example, are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. 'They will also check that the person has not voted elsewhere and that this is their first ballot,' Dresner, of the Secretary of State's Office, added. She said there's no record of RAVBM sparking security concerns. 'We are not aware of any investigations or prosecutions related to the use of the RAVBM system,' Dresner said. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence. Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"100931-proof-17-3ccfbd32e205e405fb53cd840b6bf1a1.jpg"
]
|
'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns. | Contradiction | GOP recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested - without evidence - that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program, one that helps people with disabilities cast their ballot. On Aug. 19, the conservative talk show host tweeted a Washington Examiner article with the headline, 'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns.' But election and disability rights experts say the claim Elder promoted is baseless. What's more, the article he tweeted doesn't cite anyone who raised concerns about the specific program. Given the intense focus on election security, we set out on a fact check. How Does The Program For Voters With Disabilities Work? The article points to a California election program called Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail, or RABVM. It's designed to help people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and dexterity issues, vote privately and independently. Without the program, these voters often rely on others to help them read and fill out a ballot. The system is also used by military and overseas voters. Certain counties have offered RABVM since 2017, while recent legislation required all counties to offer it starting in January 2020. Registered voters must apply through their county elections office to take part. Once accepted, they receive a unique access code to download a ballot allowing them to read and mark it using their own assistive technology device, according to Jenna Dresner, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections in the state. The program does not allow voters to submit their ballot online, nor does it allow them to print out a blank ballot. Voters using RABVM must print out a single completed ballot and then return it in a vote-by-mail envelope or in-person. 'When [RABVM voters] log into the system with their unique credentials, they are temporarily disconnected from the Internet, so no votes can be submitted online or emailed,' Dresner explained. 'This IS NOT internet voting,' reads a Disability Rights California blog post from July about the program. Newsom, Democratic Lawmakers Expand RAVBM Program Ahead of last year's presidential election and again before this year's recall, Democratic state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily expanded the remote accessible voter program to allow all registered voters in California to participate. Both times, they cited health concerns about voting in-person during the pandemic. Last year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 860 to require all counties send out vote-by-mail ballots. The bill also included a provision expanding RABVM. This past June, state lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 152 to again temporarily expand the remote accessible voting program to allow all registered voters to use it after applying through their county elections office. Dresner said that decision was also made following health concerns about voting in-person. 'The elections official shall permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, regardless of whether the voter is a voter with disabilities or a military or overseas voter,' reads the legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on June 28. SB 152 temporarily changes portions of the state elections code in what a Sacramento Bee news article described as 'an effort to benefit Gov. Gavin Newsom,' including speeding up the recall timeline. Republican state lawmakers opposed the bill, saying Democrats were 'changing the playing field,' according to the article. The bill would repeal the provisions, including the expansion of RABVM, on Jan. 1, 2022. RABVM votes accounted for 0.14% of California's total votes cast in the 2020 general election, or 24,248, according to figures from the Secretary of State's Office. The total votes cast statewide was more than 17.7 million. Election, Disability Rights Groups Say Program Not A Security Threat Kim Alexander, president of the advocacy group California Voter Foundation, said she is not aware of any security issues tied to the RAVBM program. 'People may have valid questions about it since it does use the Internet to deliver a ballot to a voter. But it does not use the Internet to return the ballot,' Alexander wrote in an email. 'The voter must print out the RAVBM ballot after making his or her selections and then put it in a [vote-by-mail] envelope they have signed just like any other vote-by-mail ballot.' Paul Spencer, an attorney with Disability Rights California, who specializes in voting issues, said 'there aren't security concerns.' Spencer said the same safeguards used to prevent fraud with traditional vote-by-mail ballots are used for RABVM. Voters, for example, are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. 'They will also check that the person has not voted elsewhere and that this is their first ballot,' Dresner, of the Secretary of State's Office, added. She said there's no record of RAVBM sparking security concerns. 'We are not aware of any investigations or prosecutions related to the use of the RAVBM system,' Dresner said. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence. Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"100931-proof-17-3ccfbd32e205e405fb53cd840b6bf1a1.jpg"
]
|
'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns. | Contradiction | GOP recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested - without evidence - that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program, one that helps people with disabilities cast their ballot. On Aug. 19, the conservative talk show host tweeted a Washington Examiner article with the headline, 'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns.' But election and disability rights experts say the claim Elder promoted is baseless. What's more, the article he tweeted doesn't cite anyone who raised concerns about the specific program. Given the intense focus on election security, we set out on a fact check. How Does The Program For Voters With Disabilities Work? The article points to a California election program called Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail, or RABVM. It's designed to help people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and dexterity issues, vote privately and independently. Without the program, these voters often rely on others to help them read and fill out a ballot. The system is also used by military and overseas voters. Certain counties have offered RABVM since 2017, while recent legislation required all counties to offer it starting in January 2020. Registered voters must apply through their county elections office to take part. Once accepted, they receive a unique access code to download a ballot allowing them to read and mark it using their own assistive technology device, according to Jenna Dresner, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections in the state. The program does not allow voters to submit their ballot online, nor does it allow them to print out a blank ballot. Voters using RABVM must print out a single completed ballot and then return it in a vote-by-mail envelope or in-person. 'When [RABVM voters] log into the system with their unique credentials, they are temporarily disconnected from the Internet, so no votes can be submitted online or emailed,' Dresner explained. 'This IS NOT internet voting,' reads a Disability Rights California blog post from July about the program. Newsom, Democratic Lawmakers Expand RAVBM Program Ahead of last year's presidential election and again before this year's recall, Democratic state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily expanded the remote accessible voter program to allow all registered voters in California to participate. Both times, they cited health concerns about voting in-person during the pandemic. Last year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 860 to require all counties send out vote-by-mail ballots. The bill also included a provision expanding RABVM. This past June, state lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 152 to again temporarily expand the remote accessible voting program to allow all registered voters to use it after applying through their county elections office. Dresner said that decision was also made following health concerns about voting in-person. 'The elections official shall permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, regardless of whether the voter is a voter with disabilities or a military or overseas voter,' reads the legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on June 28. SB 152 temporarily changes portions of the state elections code in what a Sacramento Bee news article described as 'an effort to benefit Gov. Gavin Newsom,' including speeding up the recall timeline. Republican state lawmakers opposed the bill, saying Democrats were 'changing the playing field,' according to the article. The bill would repeal the provisions, including the expansion of RABVM, on Jan. 1, 2022. RABVM votes accounted for 0.14% of California's total votes cast in the 2020 general election, or 24,248, according to figures from the Secretary of State's Office. The total votes cast statewide was more than 17.7 million. Election, Disability Rights Groups Say Program Not A Security Threat Kim Alexander, president of the advocacy group California Voter Foundation, said she is not aware of any security issues tied to the RAVBM program. 'People may have valid questions about it since it does use the Internet to deliver a ballot to a voter. But it does not use the Internet to return the ballot,' Alexander wrote in an email. 'The voter must print out the RAVBM ballot after making his or her selections and then put it in a [vote-by-mail] envelope they have signed just like any other vote-by-mail ballot.' Paul Spencer, an attorney with Disability Rights California, who specializes in voting issues, said 'there aren't security concerns.' Spencer said the same safeguards used to prevent fraud with traditional vote-by-mail ballots are used for RABVM. Voters, for example, are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. 'They will also check that the person has not voted elsewhere and that this is their first ballot,' Dresner, of the Secretary of State's Office, added. She said there's no record of RAVBM sparking security concerns. 'We are not aware of any investigations or prosecutions related to the use of the RAVBM system,' Dresner said. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence. Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"100931-proof-17-3ccfbd32e205e405fb53cd840b6bf1a1.jpg"
]
|
'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns. | Contradiction | GOP recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested - without evidence - that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program, one that helps people with disabilities cast their ballot. On Aug. 19, the conservative talk show host tweeted a Washington Examiner article with the headline, 'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns.' But election and disability rights experts say the claim Elder promoted is baseless. What's more, the article he tweeted doesn't cite anyone who raised concerns about the specific program. Given the intense focus on election security, we set out on a fact check. How Does The Program For Voters With Disabilities Work? The article points to a California election program called Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail, or RABVM. It's designed to help people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and dexterity issues, vote privately and independently. Without the program, these voters often rely on others to help them read and fill out a ballot. The system is also used by military and overseas voters. Certain counties have offered RABVM since 2017, while recent legislation required all counties to offer it starting in January 2020. Registered voters must apply through their county elections office to take part. Once accepted, they receive a unique access code to download a ballot allowing them to read and mark it using their own assistive technology device, according to Jenna Dresner, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections in the state. The program does not allow voters to submit their ballot online, nor does it allow them to print out a blank ballot. Voters using RABVM must print out a single completed ballot and then return it in a vote-by-mail envelope or in-person. 'When [RABVM voters] log into the system with their unique credentials, they are temporarily disconnected from the Internet, so no votes can be submitted online or emailed,' Dresner explained. 'This IS NOT internet voting,' reads a Disability Rights California blog post from July about the program. Newsom, Democratic Lawmakers Expand RAVBM Program Ahead of last year's presidential election and again before this year's recall, Democratic state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily expanded the remote accessible voter program to allow all registered voters in California to participate. Both times, they cited health concerns about voting in-person during the pandemic. Last year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 860 to require all counties send out vote-by-mail ballots. The bill also included a provision expanding RABVM. This past June, state lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 152 to again temporarily expand the remote accessible voting program to allow all registered voters to use it after applying through their county elections office. Dresner said that decision was also made following health concerns about voting in-person. 'The elections official shall permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, regardless of whether the voter is a voter with disabilities or a military or overseas voter,' reads the legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on June 28. SB 152 temporarily changes portions of the state elections code in what a Sacramento Bee news article described as 'an effort to benefit Gov. Gavin Newsom,' including speeding up the recall timeline. Republican state lawmakers opposed the bill, saying Democrats were 'changing the playing field,' according to the article. The bill would repeal the provisions, including the expansion of RABVM, on Jan. 1, 2022. RABVM votes accounted for 0.14% of California's total votes cast in the 2020 general election, or 24,248, according to figures from the Secretary of State's Office. The total votes cast statewide was more than 17.7 million. Election, Disability Rights Groups Say Program Not A Security Threat Kim Alexander, president of the advocacy group California Voter Foundation, said she is not aware of any security issues tied to the RAVBM program. 'People may have valid questions about it since it does use the Internet to deliver a ballot to a voter. But it does not use the Internet to return the ballot,' Alexander wrote in an email. 'The voter must print out the RAVBM ballot after making his or her selections and then put it in a [vote-by-mail] envelope they have signed just like any other vote-by-mail ballot.' Paul Spencer, an attorney with Disability Rights California, who specializes in voting issues, said 'there aren't security concerns.' Spencer said the same safeguards used to prevent fraud with traditional vote-by-mail ballots are used for RABVM. Voters, for example, are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. 'They will also check that the person has not voted elsewhere and that this is their first ballot,' Dresner, of the Secretary of State's Office, added. She said there's no record of RAVBM sparking security concerns. 'We are not aware of any investigations or prosecutions related to the use of the RAVBM system,' Dresner said. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence. Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"100931-proof-17-3ccfbd32e205e405fb53cd840b6bf1a1.jpg"
]
|
'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns. | Contradiction | GOP recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested - without evidence - that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program, one that helps people with disabilities cast their ballot. On Aug. 19, the conservative talk show host tweeted a Washington Examiner article with the headline, 'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns.' But election and disability rights experts say the claim Elder promoted is baseless. What's more, the article he tweeted doesn't cite anyone who raised concerns about the specific program. Given the intense focus on election security, we set out on a fact check. How Does The Program For Voters With Disabilities Work? The article points to a California election program called Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail, or RABVM. It's designed to help people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and dexterity issues, vote privately and independently. Without the program, these voters often rely on others to help them read and fill out a ballot. The system is also used by military and overseas voters. Certain counties have offered RABVM since 2017, while recent legislation required all counties to offer it starting in January 2020. Registered voters must apply through their county elections office to take part. Once accepted, they receive a unique access code to download a ballot allowing them to read and mark it using their own assistive technology device, according to Jenna Dresner, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections in the state. The program does not allow voters to submit their ballot online, nor does it allow them to print out a blank ballot. Voters using RABVM must print out a single completed ballot and then return it in a vote-by-mail envelope or in-person. 'When [RABVM voters] log into the system with their unique credentials, they are temporarily disconnected from the Internet, so no votes can be submitted online or emailed,' Dresner explained. 'This IS NOT internet voting,' reads a Disability Rights California blog post from July about the program. Newsom, Democratic Lawmakers Expand RAVBM Program Ahead of last year's presidential election and again before this year's recall, Democratic state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily expanded the remote accessible voter program to allow all registered voters in California to participate. Both times, they cited health concerns about voting in-person during the pandemic. Last year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 860 to require all counties send out vote-by-mail ballots. The bill also included a provision expanding RABVM. This past June, state lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 152 to again temporarily expand the remote accessible voting program to allow all registered voters to use it after applying through their county elections office. Dresner said that decision was also made following health concerns about voting in-person. 'The elections official shall permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, regardless of whether the voter is a voter with disabilities or a military or overseas voter,' reads the legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on June 28. SB 152 temporarily changes portions of the state elections code in what a Sacramento Bee news article described as 'an effort to benefit Gov. Gavin Newsom,' including speeding up the recall timeline. Republican state lawmakers opposed the bill, saying Democrats were 'changing the playing field,' according to the article. The bill would repeal the provisions, including the expansion of RABVM, on Jan. 1, 2022. RABVM votes accounted for 0.14% of California's total votes cast in the 2020 general election, or 24,248, according to figures from the Secretary of State's Office. The total votes cast statewide was more than 17.7 million. Election, Disability Rights Groups Say Program Not A Security Threat Kim Alexander, president of the advocacy group California Voter Foundation, said she is not aware of any security issues tied to the RAVBM program. 'People may have valid questions about it since it does use the Internet to deliver a ballot to a voter. But it does not use the Internet to return the ballot,' Alexander wrote in an email. 'The voter must print out the RAVBM ballot after making his or her selections and then put it in a [vote-by-mail] envelope they have signed just like any other vote-by-mail ballot.' Paul Spencer, an attorney with Disability Rights California, who specializes in voting issues, said 'there aren't security concerns.' Spencer said the same safeguards used to prevent fraud with traditional vote-by-mail ballots are used for RABVM. Voters, for example, are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. 'They will also check that the person has not voted elsewhere and that this is their first ballot,' Dresner, of the Secretary of State's Office, added. She said there's no record of RAVBM sparking security concerns. 'We are not aware of any investigations or prosecutions related to the use of the RAVBM system,' Dresner said. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence. Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"100931-proof-17-3ccfbd32e205e405fb53cd840b6bf1a1.jpg"
]
|
'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns. | Contradiction | GOP recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested - without evidence - that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program, one that helps people with disabilities cast their ballot. On Aug. 19, the conservative talk show host tweeted a Washington Examiner article with the headline, 'California voters to be able to download ballots at home for recall election, sparking security concerns.' But election and disability rights experts say the claim Elder promoted is baseless. What's more, the article he tweeted doesn't cite anyone who raised concerns about the specific program. Given the intense focus on election security, we set out on a fact check. How Does The Program For Voters With Disabilities Work? The article points to a California election program called Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail, or RABVM. It's designed to help people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and dexterity issues, vote privately and independently. Without the program, these voters often rely on others to help them read and fill out a ballot. The system is also used by military and overseas voters. Certain counties have offered RABVM since 2017, while recent legislation required all counties to offer it starting in January 2020. Registered voters must apply through their county elections office to take part. Once accepted, they receive a unique access code to download a ballot allowing them to read and mark it using their own assistive technology device, according to Jenna Dresner, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections in the state. The program does not allow voters to submit their ballot online, nor does it allow them to print out a blank ballot. Voters using RABVM must print out a single completed ballot and then return it in a vote-by-mail envelope or in-person. 'When [RABVM voters] log into the system with their unique credentials, they are temporarily disconnected from the Internet, so no votes can be submitted online or emailed,' Dresner explained. 'This IS NOT internet voting,' reads a Disability Rights California blog post from July about the program. Newsom, Democratic Lawmakers Expand RAVBM Program Ahead of last year's presidential election and again before this year's recall, Democratic state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily expanded the remote accessible voter program to allow all registered voters in California to participate. Both times, they cited health concerns about voting in-person during the pandemic. Last year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 860 to require all counties send out vote-by-mail ballots. The bill also included a provision expanding RABVM. This past June, state lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 152 to again temporarily expand the remote accessible voting program to allow all registered voters to use it after applying through their county elections office. Dresner said that decision was also made following health concerns about voting in-person. 'The elections official shall permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, regardless of whether the voter is a voter with disabilities or a military or overseas voter,' reads the legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on June 28. SB 152 temporarily changes portions of the state elections code in what a Sacramento Bee news article described as 'an effort to benefit Gov. Gavin Newsom,' including speeding up the recall timeline. Republican state lawmakers opposed the bill, saying Democrats were 'changing the playing field,' according to the article. The bill would repeal the provisions, including the expansion of RABVM, on Jan. 1, 2022. RABVM votes accounted for 0.14% of California's total votes cast in the 2020 general election, or 24,248, according to figures from the Secretary of State's Office. The total votes cast statewide was more than 17.7 million. Election, Disability Rights Groups Say Program Not A Security Threat Kim Alexander, president of the advocacy group California Voter Foundation, said she is not aware of any security issues tied to the RAVBM program. 'People may have valid questions about it since it does use the Internet to deliver a ballot to a voter. But it does not use the Internet to return the ballot,' Alexander wrote in an email. 'The voter must print out the RAVBM ballot after making his or her selections and then put it in a [vote-by-mail] envelope they have signed just like any other vote-by-mail ballot.' Paul Spencer, an attorney with Disability Rights California, who specializes in voting issues, said 'there aren't security concerns.' Spencer said the same safeguards used to prevent fraud with traditional vote-by-mail ballots are used for RABVM. Voters, for example, are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. 'They will also check that the person has not voted elsewhere and that this is their first ballot,' Dresner, of the Secretary of State's Office, added. She said there's no record of RAVBM sparking security concerns. 'We are not aware of any investigations or prosecutions related to the use of the RAVBM system,' Dresner said. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence. Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Republican recall candidate Larry Elder recently suggested, without evidence, that there are concerns about the security of a California voting program known as remote accessible vote-by-mail. He also promoted the idea that some voters could download ballots. That part is correct, but needs context: RABVM allows people with disabilities along with military and overseas voters to download a ballot before submitting it by mail or in-person. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded the program each of the past two years to allow all registered voters to use it. A small fraction of voters used it in 2020. The second part of the tweet Elder shared, about security concerns, is just plain wrong. Election and disability rights experts, along with California's Secretary of State's Office, say there's no evidence showing the program is a security risk. It is subject to the same fraud protections as California's traditional vote-by-mail program. Registered voters must apply to use it. Once approved, they use a unique access code to download, complete and print out their ballot. The ballot cannot be submitted online. Voters are required to sign the outside of their ballot envelope. County elections officials then match that signature with the ones on file to verify each ballot. Elder's campaign did not respond to a request for evidence to support the claim about security concerns. The article he tweeted out doesn't include anyone raising concerns about the remote voter program. We rated the claim Elder tweeted out as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"100931-proof-17-3ccfbd32e205e405fb53cd840b6bf1a1.jpg"
]
|
'The coronavirus was invented and patented in the USA and then planted in China. | Contradiction | Did someone invent and patent the coronavirus in the United States only to plant it in China? That's what one YouTube video shared on Facebook claims in yet another bogus coronavirus conspiracy theory that attempts to conflate a real news story with misinformation: 'The coronavirus was invented and patented in the USA and then planted in China,' reads the YouTube headline. But the seven-minute video, which had more than 81,000 views as of March 9, 2020, provides no evidence to back up the headline. Instead, it shows footage from an unrelated press conference. 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.) Video unrelated to coronavirus The video shows footage of U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling at an actual Jan. 28, 2020, news conference describing cases of 'Chinese economic espionage and research thefts in the United States.' But the video has been edited to include a jazz track and captions that were not a part of the original media event. During the press conference, Lelling announced the arrest of Harvard University professor Charles Lieber for allegedly lying about his participation in a Chinese program to recruit foreign talent to China. The Justice Department charged Lieber and two Chinese nationals in connection with aiding the Chinese government. Lieber allegedly lied about his contact with the Chinese program known as the Thousand Talents Plan, which the U.S. has previously flagged as a serious intelligence concern, and about a lucrative contract he signed with China's Wuhan University of Technology. How does this relate to the current coronavirus outbreak? It doesn't. While Novel coronavirus 2019, or COVID-19, was first detected in China's Wuhan Province, there is no connection between coronavirus and the investigation into Lieber's activities involving Wuhan University of Technology: There is no mention of coronavirus in the news release or in news reports about the case. At one point in the YouTube video, a partial document is superimposed over the screen. It makes reference to 'United States Patent Rota et al. - Coronavirus isolate from humans' and what appears to be a list of inventors, beginning with Paul A. Rota, of Decatur, Ga. That document is the patent awarded in 2007 to Rota and others for 'a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).' It was a patent for genetic sequencing and was filed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FactCheck.org explained. FactCheck.org and the fact-checking organization Snopes have both reported there is no link between Lieber and the new coronavirus. Coronavirus was not 'invented' Here's what we know about how coronavirus emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan: COVID-19 'is a zoonotic virus' - that is, it was spread from animals to humans - according to a report from 25 international experts, including some from China and the U.S., convened by the World Health Organization. Bats 'appear to be the reservoir of COVID-19 virus,' but the intermediate host or hosts - that is, how it went from bats to humans - has not been identified. Such viruses often originate in bats, although they sometimes can jump to another species before infecting humans. Chinese researchers have found a possible link between COVID-19 and pangolins, a mammal entirely covered in scales. Early on, many of the patients in Wuhan had some link to a large seafood and live animal market, suggesting animal-to-person spread, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Later, a growing number of patients reportedly did not have exposure to animal markets, indicating person-to-person spread. | Our ruling There is no credible evidence to back a claim that the coronavirus was invented in the U.S. 'and then planted in China.' The best available information is that the virus originated in China with an animal and then spread to humans. We rate the statement False. | []
|
'The coronavirus was invented and patented in the USA and then planted in China. | Contradiction | Did someone invent and patent the coronavirus in the United States only to plant it in China? That's what one YouTube video shared on Facebook claims in yet another bogus coronavirus conspiracy theory that attempts to conflate a real news story with misinformation: 'The coronavirus was invented and patented in the USA and then planted in China,' reads the YouTube headline. But the seven-minute video, which had more than 81,000 views as of March 9, 2020, provides no evidence to back up the headline. Instead, it shows footage from an unrelated press conference. 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.) Video unrelated to coronavirus The video shows footage of U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling at an actual Jan. 28, 2020, news conference describing cases of 'Chinese economic espionage and research thefts in the United States.' But the video has been edited to include a jazz track and captions that were not a part of the original media event. During the press conference, Lelling announced the arrest of Harvard University professor Charles Lieber for allegedly lying about his participation in a Chinese program to recruit foreign talent to China. The Justice Department charged Lieber and two Chinese nationals in connection with aiding the Chinese government. Lieber allegedly lied about his contact with the Chinese program known as the Thousand Talents Plan, which the U.S. has previously flagged as a serious intelligence concern, and about a lucrative contract he signed with China's Wuhan University of Technology. How does this relate to the current coronavirus outbreak? It doesn't. While Novel coronavirus 2019, or COVID-19, was first detected in China's Wuhan Province, there is no connection between coronavirus and the investigation into Lieber's activities involving Wuhan University of Technology: There is no mention of coronavirus in the news release or in news reports about the case. At one point in the YouTube video, a partial document is superimposed over the screen. It makes reference to 'United States Patent Rota et al. - Coronavirus isolate from humans' and what appears to be a list of inventors, beginning with Paul A. Rota, of Decatur, Ga. That document is the patent awarded in 2007 to Rota and others for 'a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).' It was a patent for genetic sequencing and was filed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FactCheck.org explained. FactCheck.org and the fact-checking organization Snopes have both reported there is no link between Lieber and the new coronavirus. Coronavirus was not 'invented' Here's what we know about how coronavirus emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan: COVID-19 'is a zoonotic virus' - that is, it was spread from animals to humans - according to a report from 25 international experts, including some from China and the U.S., convened by the World Health Organization. Bats 'appear to be the reservoir of COVID-19 virus,' but the intermediate host or hosts - that is, how it went from bats to humans - has not been identified. Such viruses often originate in bats, although they sometimes can jump to another species before infecting humans. Chinese researchers have found a possible link between COVID-19 and pangolins, a mammal entirely covered in scales. Early on, many of the patients in Wuhan had some link to a large seafood and live animal market, suggesting animal-to-person spread, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Later, a growing number of patients reportedly did not have exposure to animal markets, indicating person-to-person spread. | Our ruling There is no credible evidence to back a claim that the coronavirus was invented in the U.S. 'and then planted in China.' The best available information is that the virus originated in China with an animal and then spread to humans. We rate the statement False. | []
|
CDC 'will revoke the emergency use authorization' of the PCR COVID tests because those tests don't differentiate between COVID and flu viruses. 'Translation: They've been adding flu cases to Covid cases when using that test. | Contradiction | Posts circulating on Facebook and Instagram claim the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will stop using its COVID-19 test because it cannot differentiate between the COVID virus and flu viruses. 'CDC has just announced they will revoke the emergency use authorization of the RT-PCR tests first introduced in 2/20,' reads a July 25 post, which goes on to quote from the agency's lab directive: 'CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS CoV-2 and influenza viruses.' It continues: 'Translation: They've been adding flu cases to COVID cases when using that test.' Mike Huckabee, a former Fox News host who was also a Republican presidential candidate and governor of Arkansas, similarly claimed on Facebook that the CDC test cannot tell the difference between coronaviruses and flu viruses. A July 24 Instagram post went further: 'The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED.' The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) We wanted to know whether there was any truth to the idea that the CDC was removing its test because it is faulty and cannot tell one virus from another. So we consulted several laboratory testing experts. The real reason for withdrawing the EUA request The first Facebook post we referenced quoted from and linked to a July 21 CDC laboratory alert that informed labs that as of Dec. 31 the agency would withdraw its emergency use authorization request for the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel or, for short, the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR. It is standard practice for the Food and Drug Administration to issue temporary emergency use authorizations for tests and other medical products that have not yet undergone the FDA's full approval process but need to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat or prevent serious diseases. The FDA issued the EUA for the CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR in February 2020. At that time, no other tests were available in the U.S. to determine whether someone had COVID. But it's important to remember that what the CDC developed and submitted for its EUA request was not a tangible product but rather a protocol for how to test for COVID, said Susan Whittier, a professor of pathology and cell biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. That means the CDC wrote out directions specifying which reagents were needed to test the laboratory samples for the presence of the COVID virus. The CDC does not distribute COVID tests. 'It's not like they have a test that laboratories can purchase. We borrow their protocol and use the reagents that they say,' said Whittier, who recently retired as director of the clinical microbiology lab at Columbia. So withdrawing the EUA request just 'means that protocol will no longer be available.' In the lab alert, the CDC said it was withdrawing the EUA request because, rather than testing only for the COVID virus, it wants labs to test people for multiple viruses simultaneously, using what is known as 'a multiplexed method.' The CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR panel tests only for COVID-19. 'Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season,' noted the alert regarding the multiplexed method. Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University, said his take on the CDC's message is that, because flu season is on the horizon, a patient might come in with respiratory symptoms that could be attributed to either COVID-19 or the flu. Laboratories need to start testing for both COVID and various flu viruses. But the lab alert does not mean the CDC's test cannot differentiate between COVID-19 and the flu. In fact, the CDC's test was developed to look for the presence of a nucleic acid found only in the COVID virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories. 'It is not remotely accurate that the CDC test doesn't differentiate between flu and SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't detect influenza. It only detects SARS-CoV-2,' said Wroblewski. 'If flu and COVID are both circulating, you would be able to detect only SARS-CoV-2 and not flu.' How the PCR test (or any other PCR test) works, Wroblewski said, is that primers, which are little bits of a genetic material, are used to identify specific viruses. In this case, the primer is built to identify a nucleic acid found only in the COVID virus. If the COVID virus is present in the sample, the primer will attach to the virus's nucleic acid and make many copies of it. A chemical in the test will then fluoresce, which the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, machine will interpret as a positive result. If the COVID virus is not present, the primer will have nothing to attach to. When asked about the CDC withdrawing its EUA request, FDA spokesperson Jim McKinney told us PCR tests are considered the 'gold standard' for COVID diagnosis. He pointed us to data that illustrated the specificity and exclusivity of the CDC's test. That data shows test results came back negative for samples that contained similar viruses, including different types of flu and other coronaviruses. All of this means the CDC's test would not erroneously detect flu viruses. Thus, the Facebook posts' assertions that the test cannot differentiate between COVID and flu is demonstrably false. Even though the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for this specific test, Wroblewski pointed out, it still has an EUA for a second PCR test, a multiplex one that simultaneously tests for COVID and influenza types A and B. The FDA has issued EUAs to many laboratories and testing companies for hundreds of COVID tests that use the same PCR technology the CDC uses - which experts said essentially made the CDC testing protocol moot, since similar tests will still be available. So, while it is true the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for its test that tests solely for COVID, it is not for the reasons given by the Facebook posts. The assertion that COVID case counts were inflated because the test was faulty and was counting flu cases as COVID cases is false. 'They didn't withdraw the EUA because the test wasn't working,' said Whittier. 'They just wanted people to look for other viruses as well.' Polage agreed. 'The CDC is pulling their test 'off the market' as a gesture to encourage labs to use tests that include reagents (primers and probes) for both SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza so providers, labs, states, and CDC will have better data this fall and winter to estimate how much of clinical influenza-like illness is due to SARS-CoV-2 and how much is due to seasonal influenza,' Polage said in an email. | Our ruling Social media posts claimed the CDC was revoking its emergency use authorization request for its COVID test because it couldn't differentiate between the COVID virus and flu viruses. While the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for the 2019-nCoV RT-PCR test, it is not because the test is faulty. Rather, it's because the agency is concerned that, with flu season approaching, patients with respiratory illness symptoms should be screened for both the flu and COVID. The patients shouldn't be tested for COVID alone, because flu cases might be missed. The statements made in these Facebook posts are not accurate. We rate this claim False. | [
"100996-proof-34-49312da31abd681ae56b4d156eff848f.jpg"
]
|
CDC 'will revoke the emergency use authorization' of the PCR COVID tests because those tests don't differentiate between COVID and flu viruses. 'Translation: They've been adding flu cases to Covid cases when using that test. | Contradiction | Posts circulating on Facebook and Instagram claim the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will stop using its COVID-19 test because it cannot differentiate between the COVID virus and flu viruses. 'CDC has just announced they will revoke the emergency use authorization of the RT-PCR tests first introduced in 2/20,' reads a July 25 post, which goes on to quote from the agency's lab directive: 'CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS CoV-2 and influenza viruses.' It continues: 'Translation: They've been adding flu cases to COVID cases when using that test.' Mike Huckabee, a former Fox News host who was also a Republican presidential candidate and governor of Arkansas, similarly claimed on Facebook that the CDC test cannot tell the difference between coronaviruses and flu viruses. A July 24 Instagram post went further: 'The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED.' The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) We wanted to know whether there was any truth to the idea that the CDC was removing its test because it is faulty and cannot tell one virus from another. So we consulted several laboratory testing experts. The real reason for withdrawing the EUA request The first Facebook post we referenced quoted from and linked to a July 21 CDC laboratory alert that informed labs that as of Dec. 31 the agency would withdraw its emergency use authorization request for the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel or, for short, the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR. It is standard practice for the Food and Drug Administration to issue temporary emergency use authorizations for tests and other medical products that have not yet undergone the FDA's full approval process but need to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat or prevent serious diseases. The FDA issued the EUA for the CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR in February 2020. At that time, no other tests were available in the U.S. to determine whether someone had COVID. But it's important to remember that what the CDC developed and submitted for its EUA request was not a tangible product but rather a protocol for how to test for COVID, said Susan Whittier, a professor of pathology and cell biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. That means the CDC wrote out directions specifying which reagents were needed to test the laboratory samples for the presence of the COVID virus. The CDC does not distribute COVID tests. 'It's not like they have a test that laboratories can purchase. We borrow their protocol and use the reagents that they say,' said Whittier, who recently retired as director of the clinical microbiology lab at Columbia. So withdrawing the EUA request just 'means that protocol will no longer be available.' In the lab alert, the CDC said it was withdrawing the EUA request because, rather than testing only for the COVID virus, it wants labs to test people for multiple viruses simultaneously, using what is known as 'a multiplexed method.' The CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR panel tests only for COVID-19. 'Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season,' noted the alert regarding the multiplexed method. Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University, said his take on the CDC's message is that, because flu season is on the horizon, a patient might come in with respiratory symptoms that could be attributed to either COVID-19 or the flu. Laboratories need to start testing for both COVID and various flu viruses. But the lab alert does not mean the CDC's test cannot differentiate between COVID-19 and the flu. In fact, the CDC's test was developed to look for the presence of a nucleic acid found only in the COVID virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories. 'It is not remotely accurate that the CDC test doesn't differentiate between flu and SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't detect influenza. It only detects SARS-CoV-2,' said Wroblewski. 'If flu and COVID are both circulating, you would be able to detect only SARS-CoV-2 and not flu.' How the PCR test (or any other PCR test) works, Wroblewski said, is that primers, which are little bits of a genetic material, are used to identify specific viruses. In this case, the primer is built to identify a nucleic acid found only in the COVID virus. If the COVID virus is present in the sample, the primer will attach to the virus's nucleic acid and make many copies of it. A chemical in the test will then fluoresce, which the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, machine will interpret as a positive result. If the COVID virus is not present, the primer will have nothing to attach to. When asked about the CDC withdrawing its EUA request, FDA spokesperson Jim McKinney told us PCR tests are considered the 'gold standard' for COVID diagnosis. He pointed us to data that illustrated the specificity and exclusivity of the CDC's test. That data shows test results came back negative for samples that contained similar viruses, including different types of flu and other coronaviruses. All of this means the CDC's test would not erroneously detect flu viruses. Thus, the Facebook posts' assertions that the test cannot differentiate between COVID and flu is demonstrably false. Even though the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for this specific test, Wroblewski pointed out, it still has an EUA for a second PCR test, a multiplex one that simultaneously tests for COVID and influenza types A and B. The FDA has issued EUAs to many laboratories and testing companies for hundreds of COVID tests that use the same PCR technology the CDC uses - which experts said essentially made the CDC testing protocol moot, since similar tests will still be available. So, while it is true the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for its test that tests solely for COVID, it is not for the reasons given by the Facebook posts. The assertion that COVID case counts were inflated because the test was faulty and was counting flu cases as COVID cases is false. 'They didn't withdraw the EUA because the test wasn't working,' said Whittier. 'They just wanted people to look for other viruses as well.' Polage agreed. 'The CDC is pulling their test 'off the market' as a gesture to encourage labs to use tests that include reagents (primers and probes) for both SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza so providers, labs, states, and CDC will have better data this fall and winter to estimate how much of clinical influenza-like illness is due to SARS-CoV-2 and how much is due to seasonal influenza,' Polage said in an email. | Our ruling Social media posts claimed the CDC was revoking its emergency use authorization request for its COVID test because it couldn't differentiate between the COVID virus and flu viruses. While the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for the 2019-nCoV RT-PCR test, it is not because the test is faulty. Rather, it's because the agency is concerned that, with flu season approaching, patients with respiratory illness symptoms should be screened for both the flu and COVID. The patients shouldn't be tested for COVID alone, because flu cases might be missed. The statements made in these Facebook posts are not accurate. We rate this claim False. | [
"100996-proof-34-49312da31abd681ae56b4d156eff848f.jpg"
]
|
CDC 'will revoke the emergency use authorization' of the PCR COVID tests because those tests don't differentiate between COVID and flu viruses. 'Translation: They've been adding flu cases to Covid cases when using that test. | Contradiction | Posts circulating on Facebook and Instagram claim the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will stop using its COVID-19 test because it cannot differentiate between the COVID virus and flu viruses. 'CDC has just announced they will revoke the emergency use authorization of the RT-PCR tests first introduced in 2/20,' reads a July 25 post, which goes on to quote from the agency's lab directive: 'CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS CoV-2 and influenza viruses.' It continues: 'Translation: They've been adding flu cases to COVID cases when using that test.' Mike Huckabee, a former Fox News host who was also a Republican presidential candidate and governor of Arkansas, similarly claimed on Facebook that the CDC test cannot tell the difference between coronaviruses and flu viruses. A July 24 Instagram post went further: 'The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED.' The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) We wanted to know whether there was any truth to the idea that the CDC was removing its test because it is faulty and cannot tell one virus from another. So we consulted several laboratory testing experts. The real reason for withdrawing the EUA request The first Facebook post we referenced quoted from and linked to a July 21 CDC laboratory alert that informed labs that as of Dec. 31 the agency would withdraw its emergency use authorization request for the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel or, for short, the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR. It is standard practice for the Food and Drug Administration to issue temporary emergency use authorizations for tests and other medical products that have not yet undergone the FDA's full approval process but need to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat or prevent serious diseases. The FDA issued the EUA for the CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR in February 2020. At that time, no other tests were available in the U.S. to determine whether someone had COVID. But it's important to remember that what the CDC developed and submitted for its EUA request was not a tangible product but rather a protocol for how to test for COVID, said Susan Whittier, a professor of pathology and cell biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. That means the CDC wrote out directions specifying which reagents were needed to test the laboratory samples for the presence of the COVID virus. The CDC does not distribute COVID tests. 'It's not like they have a test that laboratories can purchase. We borrow their protocol and use the reagents that they say,' said Whittier, who recently retired as director of the clinical microbiology lab at Columbia. So withdrawing the EUA request just 'means that protocol will no longer be available.' In the lab alert, the CDC said it was withdrawing the EUA request because, rather than testing only for the COVID virus, it wants labs to test people for multiple viruses simultaneously, using what is known as 'a multiplexed method.' The CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR panel tests only for COVID-19. 'Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season,' noted the alert regarding the multiplexed method. Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University, said his take on the CDC's message is that, because flu season is on the horizon, a patient might come in with respiratory symptoms that could be attributed to either COVID-19 or the flu. Laboratories need to start testing for both COVID and various flu viruses. But the lab alert does not mean the CDC's test cannot differentiate between COVID-19 and the flu. In fact, the CDC's test was developed to look for the presence of a nucleic acid found only in the COVID virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories. 'It is not remotely accurate that the CDC test doesn't differentiate between flu and SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't detect influenza. It only detects SARS-CoV-2,' said Wroblewski. 'If flu and COVID are both circulating, you would be able to detect only SARS-CoV-2 and not flu.' How the PCR test (or any other PCR test) works, Wroblewski said, is that primers, which are little bits of a genetic material, are used to identify specific viruses. In this case, the primer is built to identify a nucleic acid found only in the COVID virus. If the COVID virus is present in the sample, the primer will attach to the virus's nucleic acid and make many copies of it. A chemical in the test will then fluoresce, which the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, machine will interpret as a positive result. If the COVID virus is not present, the primer will have nothing to attach to. When asked about the CDC withdrawing its EUA request, FDA spokesperson Jim McKinney told us PCR tests are considered the 'gold standard' for COVID diagnosis. He pointed us to data that illustrated the specificity and exclusivity of the CDC's test. That data shows test results came back negative for samples that contained similar viruses, including different types of flu and other coronaviruses. All of this means the CDC's test would not erroneously detect flu viruses. Thus, the Facebook posts' assertions that the test cannot differentiate between COVID and flu is demonstrably false. Even though the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for this specific test, Wroblewski pointed out, it still has an EUA for a second PCR test, a multiplex one that simultaneously tests for COVID and influenza types A and B. The FDA has issued EUAs to many laboratories and testing companies for hundreds of COVID tests that use the same PCR technology the CDC uses - which experts said essentially made the CDC testing protocol moot, since similar tests will still be available. So, while it is true the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for its test that tests solely for COVID, it is not for the reasons given by the Facebook posts. The assertion that COVID case counts were inflated because the test was faulty and was counting flu cases as COVID cases is false. 'They didn't withdraw the EUA because the test wasn't working,' said Whittier. 'They just wanted people to look for other viruses as well.' Polage agreed. 'The CDC is pulling their test 'off the market' as a gesture to encourage labs to use tests that include reagents (primers and probes) for both SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza so providers, labs, states, and CDC will have better data this fall and winter to estimate how much of clinical influenza-like illness is due to SARS-CoV-2 and how much is due to seasonal influenza,' Polage said in an email. | Our ruling Social media posts claimed the CDC was revoking its emergency use authorization request for its COVID test because it couldn't differentiate between the COVID virus and flu viruses. While the CDC is withdrawing its EUA request for the 2019-nCoV RT-PCR test, it is not because the test is faulty. Rather, it's because the agency is concerned that, with flu season approaching, patients with respiratory illness symptoms should be screened for both the flu and COVID. The patients shouldn't be tested for COVID alone, because flu cases might be missed. The statements made in these Facebook posts are not accurate. We rate this claim False. | [
"100996-proof-34-49312da31abd681ae56b4d156eff848f.jpg"
]
|
A 'face mask exempt card' allows you to cite the ADA and not wear a mask. | Contradiction | As more cities impose mandatory mask-wearing rules, some Americans are looking for loopholes. Enter the so-called 'face mask exempt card.' A June 23 Instagram post shows a photo of a laminated card that says it exempts the owner from 'any ordinance requiring face mask usage in public.' The image bears the seal of the U.S. Justice Department and includes a logo for another entity called the FTBA. 'Wearing a face mask posses a mental and/or physical risk to me,' reads text on the card, spelling error included. 'Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), I am not required to disclose my condition to you.' Below the text, there's the ADA phone number for reporting violations, followed by potential fines for offending businesses and organizations. 'Denying access to your business/organization will be also reported to FTBA for further actions,' reads the card, which includes a link to ftbagency.com. 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.) Similar posts started circulating on conservative Facebook pages in late April and early May. The first instance of the 'face mask exempt card' we could find was posted in several pro-Donald Trump and Fox News fan groups on June 20, according to CrowdTangle, an audience metrics tool. (Screenshot from Instagram) The advisory is not real. The FTBA - which stands for the Freedom to Breathe Agency - is not a part of the U.S. government. 'These postings were not issued by the Department and are not endorsed by the Department,' the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement published on the ADA website. 'The Department urges the public not to rely on the information contained in these postings.' The FTBA website was registered June 12, according to public domain records, and it now appears to be down. FTBA's Facebook group, which had more than 5,000 members and was created in early June, also appears to be offline. While the card is phony, we wondered whether there is a point about citing an ADA exemption for face masks to evade some state and local mask requirements. The ADA only provides legal protections to Americans who genuinely have disabilities. Legal experts say it's possible that there could be some situations in which businesses may have to adjust their practices to accommodate people who cannot wear a mask and comply with the law. It's also possible that some people could abuse the ADA to try to get around mask requirements. 'People that are not disabled are not protected by the ADA,' said Vinh Nguyen, project director at the Southwest ADA Center. 'I realize that does not prevent people from lying.' What the ADA has to do with mask requirements Governments have broad authority to issue health mandates in a pandemic. From New York to California, dozens of states across the country have implemented requirements for people to wear face masks in certain public spaces. The legal framework for mask requirements varies across the country. 'Think of it like this: The government has the right to ban smoking in public places because your smoking can affect my health,' wrote Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute in a June 22 column. (Poynter owns PolitiFact.) 'And some places have signs that say, 'No shirt, no shoes, no service.' Just add 'no mask' to the sign.' The Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability, does not specifically say anything about face masks. However, there may be situations in which, by requiring people to wear face masks in public, businesses would need to consider aspects of the ADA. View this post on Instagram As uncomfortable as masks are we've all gotten used to them by now, but some people are saying you can use ADA cards as exemptions from public mandates to wearing them. But is it legit? A post shared by MediaWise (@mediawise) on Jun 25, 2020 at 12:07pm PDT For example, let's say you're deaf and primarily rely on lip-reading to communicate. You go to pick up takeout from a restaurant that requires everyone to wear face masks, including employees. Since you can't read the employees' lips, that business must provide 'auxiliary aids and services' so they don't deny you service, according to the ADA. Perhaps the cashier could communicate with you via text message or a dry-erase board to complete your order. 'What the ADA basically mandates is that they have to consider serving the customer in another way,' Nguyen said. 'They don't have to allow entry into the actual store.' There also may be a case in which a customer has a respiratory condition where their breathing cannot be restricted. Similar to the previous example, a business would not have to alter its mask policy to comply with the ADA; it could provide curbside pickup or delivery. It's true that, per the ADA, businesses are not allowed to ask customers specific questions about their disabilities. 'They cannot ask for medical documentation,' said Robin Jones, director of the Great Lakes ADA Center. 'They can ask if you're not wearing a mask due to a disability, but they cannot ask me what my disability is.' That creates a situation in which people could potentially abuse the law to try to get around mask requirements. 'We know that people abuse these things - just like people take their dogs into places and claim they're a service animal,' Jones said. 'This is just unfortunately the nature of human nature. There is no good way for an entity to monitor that.' RELATED: Yes, Gov. Newsom has the authority to make masks mandatory In California, legal experts say The ADA permits retailers to deny goods or services to customers if they pose a 'direct threat' to the health and safety of others - but only when the threat cannot be mitigated by changing their practices or procedures. That stipulation may apply if someone without a mask exhibits COVID-19 symptoms in a business that requires face coverings. 'In this type of scenario, where there's a chance where an unmasked person may transmit the virus to their employees or to their other customers, they have a right to restrict people from coming into the store,' Nguyen said. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that a 'face mask exempt card' allows you to cite the ADA and not wear a mask. The advisory is not real. The FTBA is not a part of the U.S. government, and the ADA only provides legal protections to Americans who genuinely have disabilities. Legal experts say it's possible that there could be some situations in which businesses may have to alter their operations to comply with the law. It's also possible that some people could abuse the ADA to try to get around mask requirements. But that does not mean those people are exempt from wearing face masks. The Instagram post is inaccurate, so we rate it False. | [
"101008-proof-06-1fc42a64019a9b27d25d6e7dd41c2262.jpg",
"101008-proof-26-Screen_Shot_2020-06-26_at_3.19.24_PM.jpg"
]
|
A 'face mask exempt card' allows you to cite the ADA and not wear a mask. | Contradiction | As more cities impose mandatory mask-wearing rules, some Americans are looking for loopholes. Enter the so-called 'face mask exempt card.' A June 23 Instagram post shows a photo of a laminated card that says it exempts the owner from 'any ordinance requiring face mask usage in public.' The image bears the seal of the U.S. Justice Department and includes a logo for another entity called the FTBA. 'Wearing a face mask posses a mental and/or physical risk to me,' reads text on the card, spelling error included. 'Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), I am not required to disclose my condition to you.' Below the text, there's the ADA phone number for reporting violations, followed by potential fines for offending businesses and organizations. 'Denying access to your business/organization will be also reported to FTBA for further actions,' reads the card, which includes a link to ftbagency.com. 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.) Similar posts started circulating on conservative Facebook pages in late April and early May. The first instance of the 'face mask exempt card' we could find was posted in several pro-Donald Trump and Fox News fan groups on June 20, according to CrowdTangle, an audience metrics tool. (Screenshot from Instagram) The advisory is not real. The FTBA - which stands for the Freedom to Breathe Agency - is not a part of the U.S. government. 'These postings were not issued by the Department and are not endorsed by the Department,' the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement published on the ADA website. 'The Department urges the public not to rely on the information contained in these postings.' The FTBA website was registered June 12, according to public domain records, and it now appears to be down. FTBA's Facebook group, which had more than 5,000 members and was created in early June, also appears to be offline. While the card is phony, we wondered whether there is a point about citing an ADA exemption for face masks to evade some state and local mask requirements. The ADA only provides legal protections to Americans who genuinely have disabilities. Legal experts say it's possible that there could be some situations in which businesses may have to adjust their practices to accommodate people who cannot wear a mask and comply with the law. It's also possible that some people could abuse the ADA to try to get around mask requirements. 'People that are not disabled are not protected by the ADA,' said Vinh Nguyen, project director at the Southwest ADA Center. 'I realize that does not prevent people from lying.' What the ADA has to do with mask requirements Governments have broad authority to issue health mandates in a pandemic. From New York to California, dozens of states across the country have implemented requirements for people to wear face masks in certain public spaces. The legal framework for mask requirements varies across the country. 'Think of it like this: The government has the right to ban smoking in public places because your smoking can affect my health,' wrote Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute in a June 22 column. (Poynter owns PolitiFact.) 'And some places have signs that say, 'No shirt, no shoes, no service.' Just add 'no mask' to the sign.' The Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability, does not specifically say anything about face masks. However, there may be situations in which, by requiring people to wear face masks in public, businesses would need to consider aspects of the ADA. View this post on Instagram As uncomfortable as masks are we've all gotten used to them by now, but some people are saying you can use ADA cards as exemptions from public mandates to wearing them. But is it legit? A post shared by MediaWise (@mediawise) on Jun 25, 2020 at 12:07pm PDT For example, let's say you're deaf and primarily rely on lip-reading to communicate. You go to pick up takeout from a restaurant that requires everyone to wear face masks, including employees. Since you can't read the employees' lips, that business must provide 'auxiliary aids and services' so they don't deny you service, according to the ADA. Perhaps the cashier could communicate with you via text message or a dry-erase board to complete your order. 'What the ADA basically mandates is that they have to consider serving the customer in another way,' Nguyen said. 'They don't have to allow entry into the actual store.' There also may be a case in which a customer has a respiratory condition where their breathing cannot be restricted. Similar to the previous example, a business would not have to alter its mask policy to comply with the ADA; it could provide curbside pickup or delivery. It's true that, per the ADA, businesses are not allowed to ask customers specific questions about their disabilities. 'They cannot ask for medical documentation,' said Robin Jones, director of the Great Lakes ADA Center. 'They can ask if you're not wearing a mask due to a disability, but they cannot ask me what my disability is.' That creates a situation in which people could potentially abuse the law to try to get around mask requirements. 'We know that people abuse these things - just like people take their dogs into places and claim they're a service animal,' Jones said. 'This is just unfortunately the nature of human nature. There is no good way for an entity to monitor that.' RELATED: Yes, Gov. Newsom has the authority to make masks mandatory In California, legal experts say The ADA permits retailers to deny goods or services to customers if they pose a 'direct threat' to the health and safety of others - but only when the threat cannot be mitigated by changing their practices or procedures. That stipulation may apply if someone without a mask exhibits COVID-19 symptoms in a business that requires face coverings. 'In this type of scenario, where there's a chance where an unmasked person may transmit the virus to their employees or to their other customers, they have a right to restrict people from coming into the store,' Nguyen said. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that a 'face mask exempt card' allows you to cite the ADA and not wear a mask. The advisory is not real. The FTBA is not a part of the U.S. government, and the ADA only provides legal protections to Americans who genuinely have disabilities. Legal experts say it's possible that there could be some situations in which businesses may have to alter their operations to comply with the law. It's also possible that some people could abuse the ADA to try to get around mask requirements. But that does not mean those people are exempt from wearing face masks. The Instagram post is inaccurate, so we rate it False. | [
"101008-proof-06-1fc42a64019a9b27d25d6e7dd41c2262.jpg",
"101008-proof-26-Screen_Shot_2020-06-26_at_3.19.24_PM.jpg"
]
|
A 'face mask exempt card' allows you to cite the ADA and not wear a mask. | Contradiction | As more cities impose mandatory mask-wearing rules, some Americans are looking for loopholes. Enter the so-called 'face mask exempt card.' A June 23 Instagram post shows a photo of a laminated card that says it exempts the owner from 'any ordinance requiring face mask usage in public.' The image bears the seal of the U.S. Justice Department and includes a logo for another entity called the FTBA. 'Wearing a face mask posses a mental and/or physical risk to me,' reads text on the card, spelling error included. 'Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), I am not required to disclose my condition to you.' Below the text, there's the ADA phone number for reporting violations, followed by potential fines for offending businesses and organizations. 'Denying access to your business/organization will be also reported to FTBA for further actions,' reads the card, which includes a link to ftbagency.com. 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.) Similar posts started circulating on conservative Facebook pages in late April and early May. The first instance of the 'face mask exempt card' we could find was posted in several pro-Donald Trump and Fox News fan groups on June 20, according to CrowdTangle, an audience metrics tool. (Screenshot from Instagram) The advisory is not real. The FTBA - which stands for the Freedom to Breathe Agency - is not a part of the U.S. government. 'These postings were not issued by the Department and are not endorsed by the Department,' the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement published on the ADA website. 'The Department urges the public not to rely on the information contained in these postings.' The FTBA website was registered June 12, according to public domain records, and it now appears to be down. FTBA's Facebook group, which had more than 5,000 members and was created in early June, also appears to be offline. While the card is phony, we wondered whether there is a point about citing an ADA exemption for face masks to evade some state and local mask requirements. The ADA only provides legal protections to Americans who genuinely have disabilities. Legal experts say it's possible that there could be some situations in which businesses may have to adjust their practices to accommodate people who cannot wear a mask and comply with the law. It's also possible that some people could abuse the ADA to try to get around mask requirements. 'People that are not disabled are not protected by the ADA,' said Vinh Nguyen, project director at the Southwest ADA Center. 'I realize that does not prevent people from lying.' What the ADA has to do with mask requirements Governments have broad authority to issue health mandates in a pandemic. From New York to California, dozens of states across the country have implemented requirements for people to wear face masks in certain public spaces. The legal framework for mask requirements varies across the country. 'Think of it like this: The government has the right to ban smoking in public places because your smoking can affect my health,' wrote Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute in a June 22 column. (Poynter owns PolitiFact.) 'And some places have signs that say, 'No shirt, no shoes, no service.' Just add 'no mask' to the sign.' The Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability, does not specifically say anything about face masks. However, there may be situations in which, by requiring people to wear face masks in public, businesses would need to consider aspects of the ADA. View this post on Instagram As uncomfortable as masks are we've all gotten used to them by now, but some people are saying you can use ADA cards as exemptions from public mandates to wearing them. But is it legit? A post shared by MediaWise (@mediawise) on Jun 25, 2020 at 12:07pm PDT For example, let's say you're deaf and primarily rely on lip-reading to communicate. You go to pick up takeout from a restaurant that requires everyone to wear face masks, including employees. Since you can't read the employees' lips, that business must provide 'auxiliary aids and services' so they don't deny you service, according to the ADA. Perhaps the cashier could communicate with you via text message or a dry-erase board to complete your order. 'What the ADA basically mandates is that they have to consider serving the customer in another way,' Nguyen said. 'They don't have to allow entry into the actual store.' There also may be a case in which a customer has a respiratory condition where their breathing cannot be restricted. Similar to the previous example, a business would not have to alter its mask policy to comply with the ADA; it could provide curbside pickup or delivery. It's true that, per the ADA, businesses are not allowed to ask customers specific questions about their disabilities. 'They cannot ask for medical documentation,' said Robin Jones, director of the Great Lakes ADA Center. 'They can ask if you're not wearing a mask due to a disability, but they cannot ask me what my disability is.' That creates a situation in which people could potentially abuse the law to try to get around mask requirements. 'We know that people abuse these things - just like people take their dogs into places and claim they're a service animal,' Jones said. 'This is just unfortunately the nature of human nature. There is no good way for an entity to monitor that.' RELATED: Yes, Gov. Newsom has the authority to make masks mandatory In California, legal experts say The ADA permits retailers to deny goods or services to customers if they pose a 'direct threat' to the health and safety of others - but only when the threat cannot be mitigated by changing their practices or procedures. That stipulation may apply if someone without a mask exhibits COVID-19 symptoms in a business that requires face coverings. 'In this type of scenario, where there's a chance where an unmasked person may transmit the virus to their employees or to their other customers, they have a right to restrict people from coming into the store,' Nguyen said. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that a 'face mask exempt card' allows you to cite the ADA and not wear a mask. The advisory is not real. The FTBA is not a part of the U.S. government, and the ADA only provides legal protections to Americans who genuinely have disabilities. Legal experts say it's possible that there could be some situations in which businesses may have to alter their operations to comply with the law. It's also possible that some people could abuse the ADA to try to get around mask requirements. But that does not mean those people are exempt from wearing face masks. The Instagram post is inaccurate, so we rate it False. | [
"101008-proof-06-1fc42a64019a9b27d25d6e7dd41c2262.jpg",
"101008-proof-26-Screen_Shot_2020-06-26_at_3.19.24_PM.jpg"
]
|
Says Obama said black people have the 'worst jobs, the worst housing' and face rampant police brutality, 'but when so-called black committeemen came around election time we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. | Contradiction | A pro-Trump PAC recycled a quote from President Barack Obama - taken out of context - to attack Joe Biden. In an ad that aired during the Feb. 25 Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, S.C., the Committee to Defend the President urged African Americans to turn their backs on Biden. Here's the ad's text: 'Joe Biden promised to help our community. It was a lie. Here is President Obama: 'Plantation politics. Black people in the worst jobs, the worst housing, police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey.' Enough. Joe Biden won't represent us, defend us or help us. Don't believe Biden's empty promises.' We've seen this quote from Obama before. The same PAC used exactly the same material in November to attack Democrats in general for failing the black community. We rated it Pants on Fire. Here's why. What Obama wrote in his book The voice in the ad sounds like Obama dramatizing someone else's words, and the words were not his own views. They came from Obama reading from his 1995 book 'Dreams From My Father' about his days as a community organizer in Chicago. He recounted his conversation with a barber he called Smitty about Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington. Smitty explains Chicago politics to Obama, who told the barber he was not in Chicago for the election of Washington. Here's how the scene plays in the book: 'Had to be here before Harold to understand what he means to this city,' Smitty said. 'Before Harold, seemed like we'd always be second-class citizens.' 'Plantation politics,' the man with the newspaper said. 'That's just what it was, too,' Smitty said. 'A plantation. Black people in the worst jobs. The worst housing. Police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. White folks spitting in our faces, and we'd reward 'em with the vote.' In his book, Obama then described the power of African Americans to shape their political destiny when they are unified. Obama wrote: 'They had turned out in record numbers on election night, ministers and gang-bangers, young and old. And their faith had been rewarded.' In Smitty's words, 'The night Harold won, let me tell you, people just ran the streets ... ,' he said, recounting how the community was proud of Washington and themselves. 'When I woke up the next morning, it seemed like the most beautiful day of my life.' The pro-Trump ad uses the passage to create the impression that Obama believed that black voters, ignored and suffering, sold their soul to the Democrats at election time. But the actual book passage is quoting another speaker, and talks about the good things that come from voting. Worse, the ad suggests Obama was talking about recent times and the failings of Joe Biden. We contacted the PAC behind the ad and they defended their use of the excerpt. | Our ruling A pro-Trump ad says that Obama said black people have the 'worst jobs, the worst housing' and face rampant police brutality, 'but when so-called black committeemen came around election time we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey.' While Obama did say those words, they were not his own. In his book 'Dreams from my Father,' Obama was describing a conversation with a Chicago barber who remembered African Americans helping elect Chicago's first black mayor. The ad creates an impression that Obama was describing the failure of Democrats, including Biden, to actually help blacks, while in reality, the passage was about a key African American election victory. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Obama said black people have the 'worst jobs, the worst housing' and face rampant police brutality, 'but when so-called black committeemen came around election time we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. | Contradiction | A pro-Trump PAC recycled a quote from President Barack Obama - taken out of context - to attack Joe Biden. In an ad that aired during the Feb. 25 Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, S.C., the Committee to Defend the President urged African Americans to turn their backs on Biden. Here's the ad's text: 'Joe Biden promised to help our community. It was a lie. Here is President Obama: 'Plantation politics. Black people in the worst jobs, the worst housing, police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey.' Enough. Joe Biden won't represent us, defend us or help us. Don't believe Biden's empty promises.' We've seen this quote from Obama before. The same PAC used exactly the same material in November to attack Democrats in general for failing the black community. We rated it Pants on Fire. Here's why. What Obama wrote in his book The voice in the ad sounds like Obama dramatizing someone else's words, and the words were not his own views. They came from Obama reading from his 1995 book 'Dreams From My Father' about his days as a community organizer in Chicago. He recounted his conversation with a barber he called Smitty about Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington. Smitty explains Chicago politics to Obama, who told the barber he was not in Chicago for the election of Washington. Here's how the scene plays in the book: 'Had to be here before Harold to understand what he means to this city,' Smitty said. 'Before Harold, seemed like we'd always be second-class citizens.' 'Plantation politics,' the man with the newspaper said. 'That's just what it was, too,' Smitty said. 'A plantation. Black people in the worst jobs. The worst housing. Police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. White folks spitting in our faces, and we'd reward 'em with the vote.' In his book, Obama then described the power of African Americans to shape their political destiny when they are unified. Obama wrote: 'They had turned out in record numbers on election night, ministers and gang-bangers, young and old. And their faith had been rewarded.' In Smitty's words, 'The night Harold won, let me tell you, people just ran the streets ... ,' he said, recounting how the community was proud of Washington and themselves. 'When I woke up the next morning, it seemed like the most beautiful day of my life.' The pro-Trump ad uses the passage to create the impression that Obama believed that black voters, ignored and suffering, sold their soul to the Democrats at election time. But the actual book passage is quoting another speaker, and talks about the good things that come from voting. Worse, the ad suggests Obama was talking about recent times and the failings of Joe Biden. We contacted the PAC behind the ad and they defended their use of the excerpt. | Our ruling A pro-Trump ad says that Obama said black people have the 'worst jobs, the worst housing' and face rampant police brutality, 'but when so-called black committeemen came around election time we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey.' While Obama did say those words, they were not his own. In his book 'Dreams from my Father,' Obama was describing a conversation with a Chicago barber who remembered African Americans helping elect Chicago's first black mayor. The ad creates an impression that Obama was describing the failure of Democrats, including Biden, to actually help blacks, while in reality, the passage was about a key African American election victory. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Obama said black people have the 'worst jobs, the worst housing' and face rampant police brutality, 'but when so-called black committeemen came around election time we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. | Contradiction | A pro-Trump PAC recycled a quote from President Barack Obama - taken out of context - to attack Joe Biden. In an ad that aired during the Feb. 25 Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, S.C., the Committee to Defend the President urged African Americans to turn their backs on Biden. Here's the ad's text: 'Joe Biden promised to help our community. It was a lie. Here is President Obama: 'Plantation politics. Black people in the worst jobs, the worst housing, police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey.' Enough. Joe Biden won't represent us, defend us or help us. Don't believe Biden's empty promises.' We've seen this quote from Obama before. The same PAC used exactly the same material in November to attack Democrats in general for failing the black community. We rated it Pants on Fire. Here's why. What Obama wrote in his book The voice in the ad sounds like Obama dramatizing someone else's words, and the words were not his own views. They came from Obama reading from his 1995 book 'Dreams From My Father' about his days as a community organizer in Chicago. He recounted his conversation with a barber he called Smitty about Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington. Smitty explains Chicago politics to Obama, who told the barber he was not in Chicago for the election of Washington. Here's how the scene plays in the book: 'Had to be here before Harold to understand what he means to this city,' Smitty said. 'Before Harold, seemed like we'd always be second-class citizens.' 'Plantation politics,' the man with the newspaper said. 'That's just what it was, too,' Smitty said. 'A plantation. Black people in the worst jobs. The worst housing. Police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. White folks spitting in our faces, and we'd reward 'em with the vote.' In his book, Obama then described the power of African Americans to shape their political destiny when they are unified. Obama wrote: 'They had turned out in record numbers on election night, ministers and gang-bangers, young and old. And their faith had been rewarded.' In Smitty's words, 'The night Harold won, let me tell you, people just ran the streets ... ,' he said, recounting how the community was proud of Washington and themselves. 'When I woke up the next morning, it seemed like the most beautiful day of my life.' The pro-Trump ad uses the passage to create the impression that Obama believed that black voters, ignored and suffering, sold their soul to the Democrats at election time. But the actual book passage is quoting another speaker, and talks about the good things that come from voting. Worse, the ad suggests Obama was talking about recent times and the failings of Joe Biden. We contacted the PAC behind the ad and they defended their use of the excerpt. | Our ruling A pro-Trump ad says that Obama said black people have the 'worst jobs, the worst housing' and face rampant police brutality, 'but when so-called black committeemen came around election time we'd all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket, sell our souls for a Christmas turkey.' While Obama did say those words, they were not his own. In his book 'Dreams from my Father,' Obama was describing a conversation with a Chicago barber who remembered African Americans helping elect Chicago's first black mayor. The ad creates an impression that Obama was describing the failure of Democrats, including Biden, to actually help blacks, while in reality, the passage was about a key African American election victory. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
'U.S. military holding White House for Trump's return. | Contradiction | Facebook users are watching and sharing a video with the title 'It's real! U.S. military holding White House for Trump's return.' The problem is that it's not real. 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 video shows an image of former President Donald Trump and someone in uniform standing together as a narrator reads the text of a story published on July 23 on a website called Real Raw News. We've debunked fake news from this site before. This particular story contains a number of falsehoods, including that President Joe Biden 'has never set foot' in the White House and that Biden has been using director Tyler Perry's production company to film White House events. That's all wrong and unfounded, and so is the claim that the military is controlling the White House awaiting Trump's return. We rate it Pants on Fire. | We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
Donald Trump 'cancelled Bill Gates project known as ID2020. | Contradiction | Has President Donald Trump 'canceled' a global effort aimed at providing individuals access to personal identification? That's what a Facebook post that references a digital identification program called ID2020 claimed: 'BREAKING NEWS!! US PRESIDENT CANCELLED BILL GATES PROJECT KNOWN AS ID2020.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no evidence to back the claim. ID2020 is a New York City-based nonprofit formed in 2016 that has drawn international partners interested in promoting access to digital forms of identification. 'For the one in seven people globally who lacks a means to prove their identity, digital ID offers access to vital social services and enables them to exercise their rights as citizens and voters and participate in the modern economy,' the organization says. Among the founding partners are Microsoft, the company Bill Gates co-founded; and Gavi, which helps provide vaccines to developing countries and gets funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ID2020 is partnering with GAVI and the government of Bangladesh to provide children in Bangladesh with a biometrically-linked (using a fingerprint or iris scan, for example) digital health ID at the time of birth or first immunization. ID2020 deid not comment on the claim. Our June 8 searches of Google and Nexis turned up no mention of Trump taking any action against ID2020 or even making mention of it. And we found no mention of ID2020 in June 8 searches of TrumpTwitterArchive.com and the Factba.se database of Trump tweets, speeches and other remarks. Our fact-checking colleagues at Africa Check and FactCheck.org also found that Trump had not canceled the program. We rate the statement False. | We rate the statement False. | []
|
Donald Trump 'cancelled Bill Gates project known as ID2020. | Contradiction | Has President Donald Trump 'canceled' a global effort aimed at providing individuals access to personal identification? That's what a Facebook post that references a digital identification program called ID2020 claimed: 'BREAKING NEWS!! US PRESIDENT CANCELLED BILL GATES PROJECT KNOWN AS ID2020.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no evidence to back the claim. ID2020 is a New York City-based nonprofit formed in 2016 that has drawn international partners interested in promoting access to digital forms of identification. 'For the one in seven people globally who lacks a means to prove their identity, digital ID offers access to vital social services and enables them to exercise their rights as citizens and voters and participate in the modern economy,' the organization says. Among the founding partners are Microsoft, the company Bill Gates co-founded; and Gavi, which helps provide vaccines to developing countries and gets funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ID2020 is partnering with GAVI and the government of Bangladesh to provide children in Bangladesh with a biometrically-linked (using a fingerprint or iris scan, for example) digital health ID at the time of birth or first immunization. ID2020 deid not comment on the claim. Our June 8 searches of Google and Nexis turned up no mention of Trump taking any action against ID2020 or even making mention of it. And we found no mention of ID2020 in June 8 searches of TrumpTwitterArchive.com and the Factba.se database of Trump tweets, speeches and other remarks. Our fact-checking colleagues at Africa Check and FactCheck.org also found that Trump had not canceled the program. We rate the statement False. | We rate the statement False. | []
|
Says the coronavirus is 'a MILITARY BIO-WEAPON Developed by China's Army. | Contradiction | A far-right radio host who has supported the rhetoric of white supremacy is spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus outbreak. In an article published Feb. 1, the Hal Turner Radio Show wrote that the 2019 coronavirus is 'a military bioweapon developed by China's army' at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As evidence, it points to two screenshots from a national database of genetic material. 'Somehow, it got out. The world is now facing a massive wipe-out of humanity as a result,' the article reads. 'The proof that this virus is a genetically-modified Bat-SARS-Like Virus, manipulated by the Chinese Army, appears below. The evidence is irrefutable.' 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.) It has been shared more than 2,000 times. (Screenshot from Hal Turner Radio Show) Since its December outbreak in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus has spread rapidly around the world. According to the World Health Organization, more than 40,000 people have been infected in 24 countries. In China, 909 have died. PolitiFact has fact-checked several conspiracy theories about the source of the coronavirus. Some hoaxes suggested that the virus somehow escaped from the Wuhan lab, which deals with some of the world's most dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus. We have found no evidence to back up those claims - and the Hal Turner article is similarly flawed. Genetic material doesn't prove conspiracy The Hal Turner Radio Show claims that, because two coronavirus entries in a federal database have similar proteins, they are the same virus. That's unproven. Hal Turner uses internet and radio broadcasts to float conspiracy theories and hate speech. In 2010, he was sentenced to 33 months in prison for threatening three federal judges over their decision to uphold handgun bans in Chicago. The Hal Turner article cites screenshots of two GenBank entries for coronavirus proteins. GenBank is a database maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information that lists publicly available DNA sequences. The first screenshot shows an entry for an envelope protein for a 'Bat SARS-like coronavirus' that was submitted in 2018 by the Institute of Military Medicine, Nanjing Command. According to the Universal Protein Resource, an envelope protein is a membrane that 'forms the outermost layer' of the complete, infective form of certain viruses. The second screenshot is an entry for another envelope protein associated with the 'Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus.' It was submitted Jan. 5 by the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and School of Public Health at Fudan University. RELATED: PolitiFact's coronavirus coverage in one place The Hal Turner Radio Show compared the two viral proteins using a NCBI search and found that the two were nearly identical. But there are seven kinds of coronaviruses that can infect humans and they have similar envelope proteins. So the match doesn't prove the two viruses are the same. 'The family of coronaviruses are going to be highly related, just because they are in the same family,' said Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of California's Keck School of Medicine, in an email. We ran the same NCBI search as the Hal Turner Radio Show and found 78 entries with envelope proteins similar to the 2019 coronavirus. Bioweapon theory is unfounded The second claim in the Hal Turner Radio Show's article is that, since Chinese researchers uploaded its genetic information, the 2019 coronavirus is a military bioweapon. That's unproven. There is a lab near Wuhan that deals with dangerous pathogens - and some have linked it to China's biological warfare program. The country denies having such a program, but the U.S. State Department has raised concerns about China's potential noncompliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, which bans the production of such weapons. Officials are still working to determine the source of the coronavirus outbreak. In its most recent situation summary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that both it and Chinese authorities had isolated the genome of the 2019 coronavirus. Their findings suggest 'a likely single, recent emergence from a virus related to bat coronaviruses and the SARS coronavirus.' The disease appears to have originated at a seafood and animal market in Wuhan, and it spread from there to 24 countries. Researchers believe the current outbreak pattern suggests the coronavirus may have spread from animal to human at first, and now from human to human. RELATED: No evidence that Chinese officials will say coronavirus was leaked from a lab There's no evidence that the coronavirus was developed as a bioweapon. And even if there were, Watanabe said it's highly unlikely the Chinese military would have uploaded the genetic sequence to a public database maintained by an American government agency. 'China, like the other countries including the U.S., have legitimate biomedical research going on at military facilities,' Watanabe said. 'Just because they uploaded information, doesn't make it a bioweapon.' | Our ruling The Hal Turner Radio Show claimed the coronavirus is 'a MILITARY BIO-WEAPON Developed by China's Army.' As evidence, the website included two screenshots of coronavirus entries in a federal database of genetic material. The site claimed the two viruses are the same. But all human coronaviruses have similar genetic material, and just because the entries were uploaded by Chinese researchers doesn't prove that the 2019 coronavirus was developed as a bioweapon. Hal Turner Radio Show's article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101078-proof-31-ba68ba8bed78bf4d4087fcfcd2a901e9.jpg",
"101078-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-02-11_at_4.00.51_PM.jpg"
]
|
Says the coronavirus is 'a MILITARY BIO-WEAPON Developed by China's Army. | Contradiction | A far-right radio host who has supported the rhetoric of white supremacy is spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus outbreak. In an article published Feb. 1, the Hal Turner Radio Show wrote that the 2019 coronavirus is 'a military bioweapon developed by China's army' at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As evidence, it points to two screenshots from a national database of genetic material. 'Somehow, it got out. The world is now facing a massive wipe-out of humanity as a result,' the article reads. 'The proof that this virus is a genetically-modified Bat-SARS-Like Virus, manipulated by the Chinese Army, appears below. The evidence is irrefutable.' 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.) It has been shared more than 2,000 times. (Screenshot from Hal Turner Radio Show) Since its December outbreak in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus has spread rapidly around the world. According to the World Health Organization, more than 40,000 people have been infected in 24 countries. In China, 909 have died. PolitiFact has fact-checked several conspiracy theories about the source of the coronavirus. Some hoaxes suggested that the virus somehow escaped from the Wuhan lab, which deals with some of the world's most dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus. We have found no evidence to back up those claims - and the Hal Turner article is similarly flawed. Genetic material doesn't prove conspiracy The Hal Turner Radio Show claims that, because two coronavirus entries in a federal database have similar proteins, they are the same virus. That's unproven. Hal Turner uses internet and radio broadcasts to float conspiracy theories and hate speech. In 2010, he was sentenced to 33 months in prison for threatening three federal judges over their decision to uphold handgun bans in Chicago. The Hal Turner article cites screenshots of two GenBank entries for coronavirus proteins. GenBank is a database maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information that lists publicly available DNA sequences. The first screenshot shows an entry for an envelope protein for a 'Bat SARS-like coronavirus' that was submitted in 2018 by the Institute of Military Medicine, Nanjing Command. According to the Universal Protein Resource, an envelope protein is a membrane that 'forms the outermost layer' of the complete, infective form of certain viruses. The second screenshot is an entry for another envelope protein associated with the 'Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus.' It was submitted Jan. 5 by the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and School of Public Health at Fudan University. RELATED: PolitiFact's coronavirus coverage in one place The Hal Turner Radio Show compared the two viral proteins using a NCBI search and found that the two were nearly identical. But there are seven kinds of coronaviruses that can infect humans and they have similar envelope proteins. So the match doesn't prove the two viruses are the same. 'The family of coronaviruses are going to be highly related, just because they are in the same family,' said Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of California's Keck School of Medicine, in an email. We ran the same NCBI search as the Hal Turner Radio Show and found 78 entries with envelope proteins similar to the 2019 coronavirus. Bioweapon theory is unfounded The second claim in the Hal Turner Radio Show's article is that, since Chinese researchers uploaded its genetic information, the 2019 coronavirus is a military bioweapon. That's unproven. There is a lab near Wuhan that deals with dangerous pathogens - and some have linked it to China's biological warfare program. The country denies having such a program, but the U.S. State Department has raised concerns about China's potential noncompliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, which bans the production of such weapons. Officials are still working to determine the source of the coronavirus outbreak. In its most recent situation summary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that both it and Chinese authorities had isolated the genome of the 2019 coronavirus. Their findings suggest 'a likely single, recent emergence from a virus related to bat coronaviruses and the SARS coronavirus.' The disease appears to have originated at a seafood and animal market in Wuhan, and it spread from there to 24 countries. Researchers believe the current outbreak pattern suggests the coronavirus may have spread from animal to human at first, and now from human to human. RELATED: No evidence that Chinese officials will say coronavirus was leaked from a lab There's no evidence that the coronavirus was developed as a bioweapon. And even if there were, Watanabe said it's highly unlikely the Chinese military would have uploaded the genetic sequence to a public database maintained by an American government agency. 'China, like the other countries including the U.S., have legitimate biomedical research going on at military facilities,' Watanabe said. 'Just because they uploaded information, doesn't make it a bioweapon.' | Our ruling The Hal Turner Radio Show claimed the coronavirus is 'a MILITARY BIO-WEAPON Developed by China's Army.' As evidence, the website included two screenshots of coronavirus entries in a federal database of genetic material. The site claimed the two viruses are the same. But all human coronaviruses have similar genetic material, and just because the entries were uploaded by Chinese researchers doesn't prove that the 2019 coronavirus was developed as a bioweapon. Hal Turner Radio Show's article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101078-proof-31-ba68ba8bed78bf4d4087fcfcd2a901e9.jpg",
"101078-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-02-11_at_4.00.51_PM.jpg"
]
|
Says the coronavirus is 'a MILITARY BIO-WEAPON Developed by China's Army. | Contradiction | A far-right radio host who has supported the rhetoric of white supremacy is spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus outbreak. In an article published Feb. 1, the Hal Turner Radio Show wrote that the 2019 coronavirus is 'a military bioweapon developed by China's army' at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As evidence, it points to two screenshots from a national database of genetic material. 'Somehow, it got out. The world is now facing a massive wipe-out of humanity as a result,' the article reads. 'The proof that this virus is a genetically-modified Bat-SARS-Like Virus, manipulated by the Chinese Army, appears below. The evidence is irrefutable.' 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.) It has been shared more than 2,000 times. (Screenshot from Hal Turner Radio Show) Since its December outbreak in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus has spread rapidly around the world. According to the World Health Organization, more than 40,000 people have been infected in 24 countries. In China, 909 have died. PolitiFact has fact-checked several conspiracy theories about the source of the coronavirus. Some hoaxes suggested that the virus somehow escaped from the Wuhan lab, which deals with some of the world's most dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus. We have found no evidence to back up those claims - and the Hal Turner article is similarly flawed. Genetic material doesn't prove conspiracy The Hal Turner Radio Show claims that, because two coronavirus entries in a federal database have similar proteins, they are the same virus. That's unproven. Hal Turner uses internet and radio broadcasts to float conspiracy theories and hate speech. In 2010, he was sentenced to 33 months in prison for threatening three federal judges over their decision to uphold handgun bans in Chicago. The Hal Turner article cites screenshots of two GenBank entries for coronavirus proteins. GenBank is a database maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information that lists publicly available DNA sequences. The first screenshot shows an entry for an envelope protein for a 'Bat SARS-like coronavirus' that was submitted in 2018 by the Institute of Military Medicine, Nanjing Command. According to the Universal Protein Resource, an envelope protein is a membrane that 'forms the outermost layer' of the complete, infective form of certain viruses. The second screenshot is an entry for another envelope protein associated with the 'Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus.' It was submitted Jan. 5 by the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and School of Public Health at Fudan University. RELATED: PolitiFact's coronavirus coverage in one place The Hal Turner Radio Show compared the two viral proteins using a NCBI search and found that the two were nearly identical. But there are seven kinds of coronaviruses that can infect humans and they have similar envelope proteins. So the match doesn't prove the two viruses are the same. 'The family of coronaviruses are going to be highly related, just because they are in the same family,' said Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of California's Keck School of Medicine, in an email. We ran the same NCBI search as the Hal Turner Radio Show and found 78 entries with envelope proteins similar to the 2019 coronavirus. Bioweapon theory is unfounded The second claim in the Hal Turner Radio Show's article is that, since Chinese researchers uploaded its genetic information, the 2019 coronavirus is a military bioweapon. That's unproven. There is a lab near Wuhan that deals with dangerous pathogens - and some have linked it to China's biological warfare program. The country denies having such a program, but the U.S. State Department has raised concerns about China's potential noncompliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, which bans the production of such weapons. Officials are still working to determine the source of the coronavirus outbreak. In its most recent situation summary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that both it and Chinese authorities had isolated the genome of the 2019 coronavirus. Their findings suggest 'a likely single, recent emergence from a virus related to bat coronaviruses and the SARS coronavirus.' The disease appears to have originated at a seafood and animal market in Wuhan, and it spread from there to 24 countries. Researchers believe the current outbreak pattern suggests the coronavirus may have spread from animal to human at first, and now from human to human. RELATED: No evidence that Chinese officials will say coronavirus was leaked from a lab There's no evidence that the coronavirus was developed as a bioweapon. And even if there were, Watanabe said it's highly unlikely the Chinese military would have uploaded the genetic sequence to a public database maintained by an American government agency. 'China, like the other countries including the U.S., have legitimate biomedical research going on at military facilities,' Watanabe said. 'Just because they uploaded information, doesn't make it a bioweapon.' | Our ruling The Hal Turner Radio Show claimed the coronavirus is 'a MILITARY BIO-WEAPON Developed by China's Army.' As evidence, the website included two screenshots of coronavirus entries in a federal database of genetic material. The site claimed the two viruses are the same. But all human coronaviruses have similar genetic material, and just because the entries were uploaded by Chinese researchers doesn't prove that the 2019 coronavirus was developed as a bioweapon. Hal Turner Radio Show's article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101078-proof-31-ba68ba8bed78bf4d4087fcfcd2a901e9.jpg",
"101078-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-02-11_at_4.00.51_PM.jpg"
]
|
Says Patrick Mahomes said, 'I believe George Zimmerman is innocent. | Contradiction | Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes led his team on Feb. 2 to its first Super Bowl victory in 50 years. But before the big game, Twitter users called out the NFL star for an old tweet about George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted of criminal charges on July 13, 2013, in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The Miami Herald reported that Mahomes was 17 when he responded to a high school classmate's tweet that day about Zimmerman's trial. The classmate's tweet said: 'This case was an absolutely horrible tragedy, however there was no criminal activity that occurred.' Mahomes replied: 'No one knows what actually happens which is why he is not guilty but a crime could have occurred.' Twitter users shared that tweet and another screenshot of a tweet from 2011, in which Mahomes responded to another account and said: 'stop resisting or assaulting a cop #realcops.' As the Herald documents, Twitter users started using the tweets, which have since been deleted, as evidence that Mahomes supports Zimmerman. But a Jan. 14 blog post on MTONews.com goes further with this headline: 'NFL Star Patrick Mahomes: 'I believe George Zimmerman is INNOCENT'!!' It goes on to say that Mahomes believes Zimmerman is not guilty and that he supports the trial's verdict. 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.) Searching social media and news archives, we couldn't find evidence that Mahomes ever said, 'I believe George Zimmerman is innocent.' Because the blog's headline puts that phrase in quotes, it could lead readers to think that Mahomes made that direct comment. But even if the statement is meant to be an interpretation of what Mahomes tweeted back in 2013, his tweets are ambivalent enough that they do not make it clear how the quarterback felt. Other tweets from Mahomes' exchange with his high school classmate show him saying 'there was no reason for Zimmerman to follow him and Trayvon just defended himself and Zimmerman had a (gun) so he shot him' and 'I still don't understand what the point of him following him with a (gun) was.' Another tweet he published that day suggests he was disappointed by the verdict and critical of Zimmerman. 'Knew this was going to happen,' he tweeted, 'at least you know Zimmerman will never be able to go in public again.' We rate this headline False. | We rate this headline False. | []
|
Two 'Doomsday Planes' took flight because of President Donald Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis. | Contradiction | Late Oct. 1, two so-called 'doomsday planes' took flight, and not long after, President Donald Trump announced he has COVID-19. Online, people are speculating that the two events are related. Military officials say they're not. 'After Trump tested positive for Covid they scrambled the 'Doomsday Plane,'' one Facebook post says. 'For those suspecting Trump's announcement is a hoax, here's skywatcher Tim Hogan of Honolulu posting about U.S. 'doomsday planes' launching off the East and West Coasts half an hour before news broke,' says another. 'National security is no joke, and a White House in turmoil puts us all at risk.' 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 what we know about how these claims emerged: After news broke on Oct. 1 that Hope Hicks, a Trump aide who had been traveling with the president, had tested positive for COVID-19, a man named Tim Hogan tweeted about E-6B Mercury aircrafts that he said appeared on the East and West coasts of the United States. 'I looked because I would expect them to pop up if he tests positive,' Hogan said in his tweet. Then, referring to U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear forces, Hogan wrote, 'IMO Stratcom wants them to be seen.' Soon after, Trump announced on Twitter that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. An E-6B Mercury aircraft is an airborne nuclear command center that's known as a 'Doomsday Plane' because it's designed to keep the National Command Authority in contact with Naval nuclear forces in a crisis, the Washingtonian explained in a story about the planes. The Navy has 16 such planes and one is often in the air, according to Forbes. We reached out to the Defense Department about the planes but did not immediately hear back. However, U.S. Strategic Command told Business Insider that 'these flights were pre-planned missions' and that 'any timing to the president's announcement is purely coincidental.' according to the outlet's Oct. 2 story. Business Insider also quoted Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman, saying: 'There's been no change to DoD alert levels. The U.S. military stands ready to defend our country and interests. There's no change to the readiness or capability of our armed forces. Our national command and control structure is in no way affected by this announcement.' People who study nuclear issues echoed this. 'It is very routine to have E-6s up,' tweeted Vipin Narang, a political science professor and member of MIT's Security Studies Program. 'Do not read anything into this, it isn't a message to anyone. In terms of nuclear command and control, the concern isn't communication but chain of command in case of POTUS incapacitation, but we are nowhere near there yet.' 'These planes fly daily,' tweeted Marc Ambinder, security expert in residence at USC Annenberg. 'Attend to your thought patterns and cognitive biases here. I will try to do the same. Reality is unsettling enough!' Lara Seligman, a Politico reporter who covers the Pentagon, also tweeted that a spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the president's COVID-19 diagnosis did not change its alert levels. 'The US military stands ready to defend our country and its citizens,' Seligman quoted the spokesperson as saying. 'There's no change to the readiness or capability of our armed forces.' There is no substantive evidence that these aircraft were dispatched because the president was diagnosed with COVID-19. If such evidence emerges, we'll reconsider our ruling. For now, we rate claims saying otherwise False. | There is no substantive evidence that these aircraft were dispatched because the president was diagnosed with COVID-19. If such evidence emerges, we'll reconsider our ruling. For now, we rate claims saying otherwise False. | []
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.