Datasets:

tingchih

/

EM

like 0

In 2019, trans activists or 'the transgender lobby' forced Procter & Gamble to remove the Venus symbol from menstruation products.

Neutral

In October 2019, we received multiple inquiries from our readers about the accuracy of news reports claiming that Procter & Gamble, the company behind the Always brand of menstruation products, had decided to remove the female Venus gender symbol from the packaging of such products. Some articles pointedly claimed that the company had been 'forced' to make this change by angry trans activists, who had complained that adding female gender symbols and imagery to Always product packaging excluded trans men and non-binary individuals who, although they menstruate and therefore have need of menstruation products, otherwise live as men or identify as male or gender non-binary. On Oct. 19, the Daily Mail published an article with the headline 'Transgender Lobby Forces Sanitary Towel-Maker Always to Ditch Venus Logo from Its Products,' which reported that: The maker of Always sanitary pads has given in to claims of discrimination by transgender men and removed the 'Venus' symbol of the female sex from the wrapping. Outraged women are now boycotting the leading brand after the decision by makers Procter & Gamble (P&G) to kowtow to trans activists who were born female and still use sanitary products ...' As evidence of a supposed campaign of pressure and intimidation by the 'transgender lobby,' the Daily Mail cited just two tweets posted by two trans activists, one of them Ben Saunders, adding: Another activist, Ben Saunders - named young campaigner of the year by LGBT charity Stonewall in May after making a documentary about being transgender - contacted the sanitary pad makers in June with a similar complaint. The Always marketing team replied with a comment that Saunders, 18, posted on Twitter, reading: 'We are glad to inform you that as of December we will use a wrapper design without the feminine symbol.' The message stated that sanitary towels with the new packaging would hit the stores by January 2020 and added: 'We are absolutely grateful for having people like you voicing their opinions.' In addition to claiming that the same 'transgender lobby' had 'forced' Procter & Gamble - one of the world's largest consumer-products companies - to make the change, the Daily Mail used the words 'kowtow' and 'cave-in' to describe the packaging decision. Similar articles were published by the U.K. tabloid The Sun and the right-leaning U.S. websites Daily Wire and PJ Media, all of which also claimed the company had been 'forced' to remove the Venus symbol by trans activists or the 'transgender lobby.' Representatives for the Always brand did tell Saunders of their intention to remove the female Venus symbol from menstruation products beginning in December 2019 and did indicate the decision had been influenced, at least in part, by the concerns expressed by some trans people. That position was broadly reiterated by a company spokesperson in a statement to Snopes. However, it was misleading and sensationalist to claim the company had been 'forced' into taking the action they took. The available facts simply do not support that characterization. Analysis It's unclear when Always first added the Venus symbol to the packaging of their menstruation products, but Twitter users in the U.S. and U.K. (likely among other countries) first began to raise concerns about it in March 2019: Hey @Always since today is #TransVisibilityDay it's probably important to point out the fact that this new packaging isn't trans* friendly. Just a reminder that Menstruation does not equal Female. Maybe rethink this new look. pic.twitter.com/1Fp8bdB6qY - 🎃 (@Sara_Kelhi) March 31, 2019 Those concerns and requests persisted over the course of the summer and into the fall of 2019. The tweets were strikingly civil, respectful, and assertive in tone, rather than threatening or intimidating, as were the responses from the Always brand's Twitter account. On 16 October, activist Ben Saunders tweeted out a screenshot of an email from 'The Always Team' at Procter & Gamble. Saunders' account has been set to protected, but we have been able to capture the tweet, as shown below. The company confirmed the email's authenticity to Snopes. In the email, which can be read in full here, a person named Sheryl wrote: I wanted to come back to you regarding your message about the Always wrappers' design with the female symbol on it you sent 18/06/2019. We listened to you and our marketing team worked [up] a solution! We are glad to inform you that as of December we will use a new wrapper design without the feminine symbol. Please just be aware that you might still find products with the old wrapper design in the stores for some weeks after December, as the distribution of the new packages might take some time - the new designs should be in store Jan/Feb 2020. We are absolutely grateful for having people like you voicing their opinions. Thank you for contacting us, your comments help us improve every day! A spokesperson for Procter & Gamble told Snopes the Venus symbol would be removed from menstruation products in 'multiple markets at various dates,' and confirmed this process would begin in early 2020. The statement read: For over 35 years, Always has championed girls and women, and we will continue to do so. We're also committed to diversity and inclusion, and are on a continual journey to understand the needs of all of our consumers. We routinely assess our products, packaging and designs, taking into account consumer feedback to ensure we are meeting the needs of everyone who uses our products. After hearing from many people, we recognized that not everyone who has a period and needs to use a pad, identifies as female. To ensure that anyone who needs to use a period product feels comfortable with Always, we're adjusting our pad wrapper design as part of our next round of product changes. As a global brand, our design updates will be adapted by multiple markets at various dates beginning in January/February 2020. Saunders' tweet prompted multiple news reports and an angry response from some women and feminists, who objected to the planned removal of the Venus symbol. The hashtag #BoycottAlways appeared on Twitter in October, a more aggressive and inherently coercive form of dissent than had ever emerged on social media among those trans activists who had objected to the inclusion of the symbol beginning in March. Procter & Gamble's decision to introduce the Venus symbol certainly prompted a concerned response among trans activists (especially trans men) in 2019, and some of those activists expressed those concerns and requests to the company in no uncertain terms. However, the proverbial 'angry backlash,' including online calls for a boycott of Always - an inherently coercive form of opposition - only came in October, when news emerged that the company would be removing the symbol. Companies make marketing and public relations decisions for various reasons, and such choices are typically arrived at after careful consideration of multiple strategic, commercial, financial, ethical, and legal factors. Requests and appeals such as those made by Saunders and other trans activists certainly appear to have played a role in Procter & Gamble's decision, based on the company's own statement. However, it is a gross distortion of the actual sequence of events to claim that those activists, or an ill-defined 'transgender lobby,' somehow forced the company into its U-turn on the Venus symbol. They did not.

nan

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Muslims, Jews, and atheists shouldn't be judges.

Neutral

After President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November 2018, he appointed Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General in a controversial move that placed a non-Senate-confirmed leader in charge of the Justice Department ahead Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had been confirmed by the Senate and who would normally fill that temporary role. Back in 2014, Whitaker was a candidate for the Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat representing Iowa. At that time Whitaker participated in a forum along with fellow candidates Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst which was hosted by the religious-right group The Family Leader and moderated by conservative internet personality Erick Erickson. Ernst and Clovis both stated that faith-based criteria were a valid way to vet candidates for a federal judgeships, as reported by Newsweek: 'If you get to the United States Senate and you have the majority, you can block President Obama's judges,' said moderator Erick Erickson, a conservative blogger. 'But most Americans would say you need to have a real reason to block those judges other than just they're liberal. How do you set the criteria that you will use to block those judges?' Whittaker's two competitors, Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst, said that they would use faith-based criteria and make sure they acknowledged 'natural law.' Whitaker took this view even further, arguing that faith-based criteria for judges were valid and that people who held secular views (or even Old Testament views) would be concerning to him, as reported by the Washington Post: In an April 25, 2014, debate, moderator Erick Erickson asked the candidates about their faith. Whitaker said that, if elected, he would want judges who 'have a biblical view of justice, which I think is very important ...' Erickson interjected: 'Levitical or New Testament?' 'I'm a New Testament,' Whitaker answered, according to an account at the time in the Des Moines Register. 'And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge.' After Whitaker was controversially appointed as acting attorney general, this exchange was presented in some headlines as Whitaker's having declared that 'Jews, Muslims, and atheists should not be federal judges': Erickson's question about a 'Levitical or New Testament' reading of the Bible and Whitaker's answer to it did suggest that Whitaker's view of an ideal justice was narrowly limited to Christians and therefore necessarily exclusive of Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, his explicit statement that he would be 'very concerned' about a judge who held secular views also suggested he did not find it desirable for atheists to hold judgeships. While Whitaker's statement did not explicitly make the case that Jews, Muslims, and atheists would be bad judges or should be disqualified from serving as judges, his statements strongly implied that he would prefer all judges be Christians. Whatever Whitaker's personal feelings might be, though, Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'

nan

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Muslims, Jews, and atheists shouldn't be judges.

Neutral

After President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November 2018, he appointed Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General in a controversial move that placed a non-Senate-confirmed leader in charge of the Justice Department ahead Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had been confirmed by the Senate and who would normally fill that temporary role. Back in 2014, Whitaker was a candidate for the Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat representing Iowa. At that time Whitaker participated in a forum along with fellow candidates Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst which was hosted by the religious-right group The Family Leader and moderated by conservative internet personality Erick Erickson. Ernst and Clovis both stated that faith-based criteria were a valid way to vet candidates for a federal judgeships, as reported by Newsweek: 'If you get to the United States Senate and you have the majority, you can block President Obama's judges,' said moderator Erick Erickson, a conservative blogger. 'But most Americans would say you need to have a real reason to block those judges other than just they're liberal. How do you set the criteria that you will use to block those judges?' Whittaker's two competitors, Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst, said that they would use faith-based criteria and make sure they acknowledged 'natural law.' Whitaker took this view even further, arguing that faith-based criteria for judges were valid and that people who held secular views (or even Old Testament views) would be concerning to him, as reported by the Washington Post: In an April 25, 2014, debate, moderator Erick Erickson asked the candidates about their faith. Whitaker said that, if elected, he would want judges who 'have a biblical view of justice, which I think is very important ...' Erickson interjected: 'Levitical or New Testament?' 'I'm a New Testament,' Whitaker answered, according to an account at the time in the Des Moines Register. 'And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge.' After Whitaker was controversially appointed as acting attorney general, this exchange was presented in some headlines as Whitaker's having declared that 'Jews, Muslims, and atheists should not be federal judges': Erickson's question about a 'Levitical or New Testament' reading of the Bible and Whitaker's answer to it did suggest that Whitaker's view of an ideal justice was narrowly limited to Christians and therefore necessarily exclusive of Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, his explicit statement that he would be 'very concerned' about a judge who held secular views also suggested he did not find it desirable for atheists to hold judgeships. While Whitaker's statement did not explicitly make the case that Jews, Muslims, and atheists would be bad judges or should be disqualified from serving as judges, his statements strongly implied that he would prefer all judges be Christians. Whatever Whitaker's personal feelings might be, though, Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'

nan

President Trump is planning a military parade for the 4th of July in 2019.

Neutral

On 12 February 2019, President Donald Trump addressed Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) David Bernhardt in regards to a parade, or gathering, dubbed 'Salute to America,' to be held on the upcoming Independence Day holiday. At the beginning of the meeting, Trump stated: Thank you all for being here. Before we begin, we're thinking about certain things that we're just starting to look at. David Bernhardt is, as you know, going through the process - becoming Secretary of Interior, from Acting. He's done a fantastic job. And I think it will continue, and we look forward to that. We're thinking about doing, on the 4th of July or thereabouts, a parade. A 'Salute to America' parade. It will be a - really, a gathering, as opposed to a parade, I'd guess you'd have to say. Perhaps at the Lincoln Memorial. We're looking at sites. But we're thinking about doing something, which would become, perhaps, a tradition. 'Salute to America' on July 4th or July 4th weekend. Somewhere around that area. And, David, you're taking charge of that and you'll see how it works out with schedules and everything else. And I think it could be a very exciting day. And the fireworks is there anyway, so we just saved on fireworks. We get free fireworks because it's already being done. (Laughter.) So, that's very good. Trump's remarks generated a bit of a media stir, including a headline in the New York Post that read, 'Trump wants his huge military parade on Fourth of July.' Perhaps because Trump has fruitlessly floated the idea of a military parade in the past, readers questioned whether another one was truly in the works. We contacted the Department of Interior to ask what plans for a potential 'Salute to America' event were afoot, and we were instructed to direct questions to the White House, with a DOI spokesperson stating, 'We are working diligently to present the best options to the White House.' Our email to the White House press office was not answered. It's no secret Trump has wanted a military parade since witnessing and being impressed by 14 July 2017 Bastille Day festivities on a visit to France. Making one materialize has so far been a non-starter. On 6 February 2018 - a year before today's writing - the Washington Post broke the original story that the Trump administration was in the early stages of planning a military parade for some point in time, in conjunction with the Defense Department. But in late summer 2018, Trump backed away from the plan, citing the astronomical cost associated with it, with the New York Times reporting administration officials suffered 'sticker shock after seeing a Pentagon estimate that soared as high as $92 million to pay for the troops, fighter jets, armored vehicles and other military hardware that would be mustered to satisfy the president's dream of displaying American might.' On July 1, 2019, Trump announced that military tanks would be part of a celebration piggybacking on an already-existing annual July 4th celebration put on by Washington, D.C.'s, local government, which includes fireworks, a music concert, as well as a parade in which uniformed members of the military participate. Trump is planning to speak at the event 2019 event, which is expected to include military flyovers. Protesters are also expected to attend the event.

nan

A man in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, caught the legendary Mothman on camera.

Neutral

On 20 November 2016, an unidentified man allegedly captured images of what he believed to be the Mothman, a flying humanoid monster that gained fame for terrorizing the West Virginia town of Point Pleasant in the mid-1960s. The photographer gave the pictures to local news station WCHS, claiming he took them while driving on State Route 2; the station aired the pictures in a 21 November 2016 report. The images are grainy and show the silhouette of a two-legged, winged creature flying around tree tops: The Mothman has been a part of the local folklore of Point Pleasant (a small city on the western border of West Virginia) since it was first sighted in 1966. Sightings of the creature were associated with the collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River in 1967, which killed dozens of people, leaving some residents to consider Mothman sightings to be bad omens (although the bridge collapse occurred more than a year after the first sightings were reported, making the connection tenuous at best). While the Mothman legend has become a national curiosity and tourist attraction, early news reports on initial sightings suggest authorities believed it was an unusual-looking bird. Around the time it was first spotted, then-Mason County Sheriff George Johnson said the creature was likely a shitepoke, a type of heron. But that levelheaded assessment didn't do much to stop the story from spreading, with the help of credulous reporters writing stories about a mysterious, large flying monster terrorizing the town. 'Monster no joke for those who saw it,' blared a headline in the Athens Messenger on 18 November 1966. It gained even more of a following with the publishing of a 1975 book, The Mothman Prophecies, and a 2002 movie starring Richard Gere by the same name. On 1 December 1966, authorities and a local biologist told the Associated Press they believed it to be a sandhill crane that had wandered out of its normal migration route. Because it wasn't native to the region, its appearance wasn't familiar to the local community, causing some fright: During the next three days at least eight persons reported various similar creatures. On Nov. 18, two volunteer firemen, Capt. Paul Yoder and Benjamin Enochs, said they saw what definitely was a very large bird with large red eyes. Dr. Robert L. Smith, associated professor of wildlife biology at WVU [West Virginia University], said the descriptions all fitted the sandhill crane, the second largest American crane, which stands almost as high as a man and has a wing span of more than seven feet. He said the 'red eyes' could be the large circles of bare reddish flesh around the crane's eyes. Smith said the bird apparently had wandered out of its normal migration route. The most realistic explanation for the sightings of the so-called Mothman fell largely on deaf ears, as the story went on to become folklore. In fact, it seems likely the recent photographs were produced with the intention of stirring up the Mothman myth on its 50th anniversary, as it was in late November 1966 when sightings were first reported. News reports about the recent sighting make it clear that the Mothman legend has ingrained itself in local culture and is not going anywhere. The creature has a statue in the middle of town, a festival and museum dedicated to him, and multiple local businesses that use him as a draw for customers.

nan

On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump and his closest associates held a private tent party near the U.S. Capitol to livestream footage of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the federal building.

Neutral

In the aftermath of an attack by American right-wing extremists on the U.S. Capitol - which resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer, numerous injuries and arrests, and damage to the federal building - a video from one of U.S. President Donald Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr., surfaced online as alleged evidence that the president watched the siege from a private tent party. The footage, which appeared on YouTube and Twitter shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, showed Trump Jr. recording himself with a front-facing camera as Laura Branigan's 1982 pop hit 'Gloria' played in the background. He told the camera: Just awesome patriots that are sick of the bullshit, so thank you all for that. In fact, it's hard to believe. Unfortunately, there's no room in between the main ground and then the masses. Love to see them getting closer 'cause I think it'd be pretty awesome, but this is pretty incredible. Then, at about the 21-second mark, the camera flipped to show what was in front of Trump Jr.: a few dozen people including the president standing around several screens depicting a crowd of supporters. The group was gathered inside a large outdoor party tent. While panning the scene for the viral 2:20-minute clip, Trump Jr. briefly stopped the camera on his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality and adviser for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. Trump Jr. yelled her name, she noticed the camera, and then she smiled and danced for about 10 seconds. After that, the video went back and forth between showing the screens with the president in front of them and 'selfie' mode on Trump Jr. and White house Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle conclude the viral video saying: Trump Jr.: I think we're T-minus a couple of seconds here, guys, so check it out, tune in. We're going to livestream it. It's going to be good. The Mark Meadows, an actual fighter, one of the few, a real fighter. Thank you, Mark. [...] Guilfoyle: Have the courage to do the right thing. Fight! The video was indeed authentic and was recorded on the day the pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol in an unsuccessful attempt to halt a Congressional vote to certify Joe Biden's presidential win. However, it depicted the moments before Trump addressed supporters at the Ellipse Park (which is directly south of the White House and a roughly 20-minute walk from the Capitol), but it did not show him watching a livestream of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the Capitol. We will lay out our evidence for those findings. According to an archive of Trump Jr.'s Facebook history, the video was posted to his official account with the title, 'A Little Backstage Time With POTUS Before His Speech' and garnered tens of thousands of shares. By the time of this report, the video no longer existed on the social media platform. According to video footage of the event at Ellipse Park by Bloomberg, Branigan's 'Gloria' blared through loudspeakers two times: once around 11:30 a.m. and then again about a half hour later, immediately before Trump took the stage. That audio was proof that the tent party was indeed a backstage event that showed him waiting to make his headline appearance. (An official Twitter account for Branigan, who died in 2004, said the Trump team did not have permission to use the song, and that it was 'absolutely appalling' to hear it in the viral video.) Additionally, the screens depicted in Trump Jr.'s footage showed a crowd of people in front of a stage and signs with slogans for the pre-planned event, such as 'SAVE AMERICA MARCH' and 'THE BEST IS YET TO COME!' There was no evidence of the party-goers watching footage of the nearby Capitol, which was where violence and chaos ensued. Emmanuelle Saliba, a former investigative journalist for NBC News, confirmed those findings, tweeting that Trump Jr. posted the backstage footage around noon, shortly before the president said on stage he would march with them to the Capitol to 'demand that Congress do the right thing.' (Here's more of what Trump said on stage.) During the approximately 70-minute speech, members of the far-right crowd began leaving the park and heading toward the Capitol, Saliba reported. See the below-displayed map by BBC to visualize the scene.Shortly before 1 p.m. (approximately an hour after Trump Jr. posted the livestream), posts started surfacing on social media showing extremists breaching barriers around the Capitol designed to prevent trespassing. Then, by 1:05 p.m., Saliba reported hundreds of people were charging toward the Capitol. In other words, it was true that some extremists started breaking into the federal property during Trump's speech, which immediately followed the backstage tent party. However, once he finished his remarks, he did not follow through with the pledge to join them in walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. Instead, Trump returned to the White House, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. There, officials told Haberman that Trump watched his supporters breach and vandalize the Capitol on television, while berating aides and disparaging Vice President Mike Pence for not agreeing to his agenda. Haberman wrote: The president holed up in the Oval Office, speaking with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, who was said to have been rattled by the day, and Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel. In other words, while the exact location of the president at the peak of the chaotic insurrection was unknown, no evidence showed he was at a tent party. Rather, a reputable news outlet said he was in the West Wing. At 2:38 p.m., as pressure mounted on Trump to condemn the violence, he tweeted: 'Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!' Later, he posted a video on social media sites saying he loved the rioters and that they should 'go home in peace' - footage the platforms later deleted for violating policies aiming to prevent violence and misinformation. Additionally, Twitter locked the account of @realDonaldTrump for 12 hours. By Jan. 8, The Associated Press reported: The final days of Trump's presidency are spinning toward a chaotic end as he holes up at the White House, abandoned by many aides, leading Republicans and Cabinet members. He was tweeting again after his Twitter account was reinstated, reverting to an aggressive statement that his supporters must not be 'disrespected' after he sent out a calmer Thursday video decrying the violence. On the evening of Jan. 8, Twitter announced it was permanently banning Trump from its site, citing 'risk of further incitement of violence.'Recent Updates This article was updated to note that Branigan's 'Gloria' played twice through loudspeakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally at Ellipse Park.

nan

On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump and his closest associates held a private tent party near the U.S. Capitol to livestream footage of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the federal building.

Neutral

In the aftermath of an attack by American right-wing extremists on the U.S. Capitol - which resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer, numerous injuries and arrests, and damage to the federal building - a video from one of U.S. President Donald Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr., surfaced online as alleged evidence that the president watched the siege from a private tent party. The footage, which appeared on YouTube and Twitter shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, showed Trump Jr. recording himself with a front-facing camera as Laura Branigan's 1982 pop hit 'Gloria' played in the background. He told the camera: Just awesome patriots that are sick of the bullshit, so thank you all for that. In fact, it's hard to believe. Unfortunately, there's no room in between the main ground and then the masses. Love to see them getting closer 'cause I think it'd be pretty awesome, but this is pretty incredible. Then, at about the 21-second mark, the camera flipped to show what was in front of Trump Jr.: a few dozen people including the president standing around several screens depicting a crowd of supporters. The group was gathered inside a large outdoor party tent. While panning the scene for the viral 2:20-minute clip, Trump Jr. briefly stopped the camera on his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality and adviser for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. Trump Jr. yelled her name, she noticed the camera, and then she smiled and danced for about 10 seconds. After that, the video went back and forth between showing the screens with the president in front of them and 'selfie' mode on Trump Jr. and White house Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle conclude the viral video saying: Trump Jr.: I think we're T-minus a couple of seconds here, guys, so check it out, tune in. We're going to livestream it. It's going to be good. The Mark Meadows, an actual fighter, one of the few, a real fighter. Thank you, Mark. [...] Guilfoyle: Have the courage to do the right thing. Fight! The video was indeed authentic and was recorded on the day the pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol in an unsuccessful attempt to halt a Congressional vote to certify Joe Biden's presidential win. However, it depicted the moments before Trump addressed supporters at the Ellipse Park (which is directly south of the White House and a roughly 20-minute walk from the Capitol), but it did not show him watching a livestream of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the Capitol. We will lay out our evidence for those findings. According to an archive of Trump Jr.'s Facebook history, the video was posted to his official account with the title, 'A Little Backstage Time With POTUS Before His Speech' and garnered tens of thousands of shares. By the time of this report, the video no longer existed on the social media platform. According to video footage of the event at Ellipse Park by Bloomberg, Branigan's 'Gloria' blared through loudspeakers two times: once around 11:30 a.m. and then again about a half hour later, immediately before Trump took the stage. That audio was proof that the tent party was indeed a backstage event that showed him waiting to make his headline appearance. (An official Twitter account for Branigan, who died in 2004, said the Trump team did not have permission to use the song, and that it was 'absolutely appalling' to hear it in the viral video.) Additionally, the screens depicted in Trump Jr.'s footage showed a crowd of people in front of a stage and signs with slogans for the pre-planned event, such as 'SAVE AMERICA MARCH' and 'THE BEST IS YET TO COME!' There was no evidence of the party-goers watching footage of the nearby Capitol, which was where violence and chaos ensued. Emmanuelle Saliba, a former investigative journalist for NBC News, confirmed those findings, tweeting that Trump Jr. posted the backstage footage around noon, shortly before the president said on stage he would march with them to the Capitol to 'demand that Congress do the right thing.' (Here's more of what Trump said on stage.) During the approximately 70-minute speech, members of the far-right crowd began leaving the park and heading toward the Capitol, Saliba reported. See the below-displayed map by BBC to visualize the scene.Shortly before 1 p.m. (approximately an hour after Trump Jr. posted the livestream), posts started surfacing on social media showing extremists breaching barriers around the Capitol designed to prevent trespassing. Then, by 1:05 p.m., Saliba reported hundreds of people were charging toward the Capitol. In other words, it was true that some extremists started breaking into the federal property during Trump's speech, which immediately followed the backstage tent party. However, once he finished his remarks, he did not follow through with the pledge to join them in walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. Instead, Trump returned to the White House, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. There, officials told Haberman that Trump watched his supporters breach and vandalize the Capitol on television, while berating aides and disparaging Vice President Mike Pence for not agreeing to his agenda. Haberman wrote: The president holed up in the Oval Office, speaking with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, who was said to have been rattled by the day, and Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel. In other words, while the exact location of the president at the peak of the chaotic insurrection was unknown, no evidence showed he was at a tent party. Rather, a reputable news outlet said he was in the West Wing. At 2:38 p.m., as pressure mounted on Trump to condemn the violence, he tweeted: 'Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!' Later, he posted a video on social media sites saying he loved the rioters and that they should 'go home in peace' - footage the platforms later deleted for violating policies aiming to prevent violence and misinformation. Additionally, Twitter locked the account of @realDonaldTrump for 12 hours. By Jan. 8, The Associated Press reported: The final days of Trump's presidency are spinning toward a chaotic end as he holes up at the White House, abandoned by many aides, leading Republicans and Cabinet members. He was tweeting again after his Twitter account was reinstated, reverting to an aggressive statement that his supporters must not be 'disrespected' after he sent out a calmer Thursday video decrying the violence. On the evening of Jan. 8, Twitter announced it was permanently banning Trump from its site, citing 'risk of further incitement of violence.'Recent Updates This article was updated to note that Branigan's 'Gloria' played twice through loudspeakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally at Ellipse Park.

nan

On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump and his closest associates held a private tent party near the U.S. Capitol to livestream footage of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the federal building.

Neutral

In the aftermath of an attack by American right-wing extremists on the U.S. Capitol - which resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer, numerous injuries and arrests, and damage to the federal building - a video from one of U.S. President Donald Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr., surfaced online as alleged evidence that the president watched the siege from a private tent party. The footage, which appeared on YouTube and Twitter shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, showed Trump Jr. recording himself with a front-facing camera as Laura Branigan's 1982 pop hit 'Gloria' played in the background. He told the camera: Just awesome patriots that are sick of the bullshit, so thank you all for that. In fact, it's hard to believe. Unfortunately, there's no room in between the main ground and then the masses. Love to see them getting closer 'cause I think it'd be pretty awesome, but this is pretty incredible. Then, at about the 21-second mark, the camera flipped to show what was in front of Trump Jr.: a few dozen people including the president standing around several screens depicting a crowd of supporters. The group was gathered inside a large outdoor party tent. While panning the scene for the viral 2:20-minute clip, Trump Jr. briefly stopped the camera on his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality and adviser for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. Trump Jr. yelled her name, she noticed the camera, and then she smiled and danced for about 10 seconds. After that, the video went back and forth between showing the screens with the president in front of them and 'selfie' mode on Trump Jr. and White house Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle conclude the viral video saying: Trump Jr.: I think we're T-minus a couple of seconds here, guys, so check it out, tune in. We're going to livestream it. It's going to be good. The Mark Meadows, an actual fighter, one of the few, a real fighter. Thank you, Mark. [...] Guilfoyle: Have the courage to do the right thing. Fight! The video was indeed authentic and was recorded on the day the pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol in an unsuccessful attempt to halt a Congressional vote to certify Joe Biden's presidential win. However, it depicted the moments before Trump addressed supporters at the Ellipse Park (which is directly south of the White House and a roughly 20-minute walk from the Capitol), but it did not show him watching a livestream of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the Capitol. We will lay out our evidence for those findings. According to an archive of Trump Jr.'s Facebook history, the video was posted to his official account with the title, 'A Little Backstage Time With POTUS Before His Speech' and garnered tens of thousands of shares. By the time of this report, the video no longer existed on the social media platform. According to video footage of the event at Ellipse Park by Bloomberg, Branigan's 'Gloria' blared through loudspeakers two times: once around 11:30 a.m. and then again about a half hour later, immediately before Trump took the stage. That audio was proof that the tent party was indeed a backstage event that showed him waiting to make his headline appearance. (An official Twitter account for Branigan, who died in 2004, said the Trump team did not have permission to use the song, and that it was 'absolutely appalling' to hear it in the viral video.) Additionally, the screens depicted in Trump Jr.'s footage showed a crowd of people in front of a stage and signs with slogans for the pre-planned event, such as 'SAVE AMERICA MARCH' and 'THE BEST IS YET TO COME!' There was no evidence of the party-goers watching footage of the nearby Capitol, which was where violence and chaos ensued. Emmanuelle Saliba, a former investigative journalist for NBC News, confirmed those findings, tweeting that Trump Jr. posted the backstage footage around noon, shortly before the president said on stage he would march with them to the Capitol to 'demand that Congress do the right thing.' (Here's more of what Trump said on stage.) During the approximately 70-minute speech, members of the far-right crowd began leaving the park and heading toward the Capitol, Saliba reported. See the below-displayed map by BBC to visualize the scene.Shortly before 1 p.m. (approximately an hour after Trump Jr. posted the livestream), posts started surfacing on social media showing extremists breaching barriers around the Capitol designed to prevent trespassing. Then, by 1:05 p.m., Saliba reported hundreds of people were charging toward the Capitol. In other words, it was true that some extremists started breaking into the federal property during Trump's speech, which immediately followed the backstage tent party. However, once he finished his remarks, he did not follow through with the pledge to join them in walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. Instead, Trump returned to the White House, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. There, officials told Haberman that Trump watched his supporters breach and vandalize the Capitol on television, while berating aides and disparaging Vice President Mike Pence for not agreeing to his agenda. Haberman wrote: The president holed up in the Oval Office, speaking with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, who was said to have been rattled by the day, and Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel. In other words, while the exact location of the president at the peak of the chaotic insurrection was unknown, no evidence showed he was at a tent party. Rather, a reputable news outlet said he was in the West Wing. At 2:38 p.m., as pressure mounted on Trump to condemn the violence, he tweeted: 'Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!' Later, he posted a video on social media sites saying he loved the rioters and that they should 'go home in peace' - footage the platforms later deleted for violating policies aiming to prevent violence and misinformation. Additionally, Twitter locked the account of @realDonaldTrump for 12 hours. By Jan. 8, The Associated Press reported: The final days of Trump's presidency are spinning toward a chaotic end as he holes up at the White House, abandoned by many aides, leading Republicans and Cabinet members. He was tweeting again after his Twitter account was reinstated, reverting to an aggressive statement that his supporters must not be 'disrespected' after he sent out a calmer Thursday video decrying the violence. On the evening of Jan. 8, Twitter announced it was permanently banning Trump from its site, citing 'risk of further incitement of violence.'Recent Updates This article was updated to note that Branigan's 'Gloria' played twice through loudspeakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally at Ellipse Park.

nan

On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump and his closest associates held a private tent party near the U.S. Capitol to livestream footage of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the federal building.

Neutral

In the aftermath of an attack by American right-wing extremists on the U.S. Capitol - which resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer, numerous injuries and arrests, and damage to the federal building - a video from one of U.S. President Donald Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr., surfaced online as alleged evidence that the president watched the siege from a private tent party. The footage, which appeared on YouTube and Twitter shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, showed Trump Jr. recording himself with a front-facing camera as Laura Branigan's 1982 pop hit 'Gloria' played in the background. He told the camera: Just awesome patriots that are sick of the bullshit, so thank you all for that. In fact, it's hard to believe. Unfortunately, there's no room in between the main ground and then the masses. Love to see them getting closer 'cause I think it'd be pretty awesome, but this is pretty incredible. Then, at about the 21-second mark, the camera flipped to show what was in front of Trump Jr.: a few dozen people including the president standing around several screens depicting a crowd of supporters. The group was gathered inside a large outdoor party tent. While panning the scene for the viral 2:20-minute clip, Trump Jr. briefly stopped the camera on his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality and adviser for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. Trump Jr. yelled her name, she noticed the camera, and then she smiled and danced for about 10 seconds. After that, the video went back and forth between showing the screens with the president in front of them and 'selfie' mode on Trump Jr. and White house Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle conclude the viral video saying: Trump Jr.: I think we're T-minus a couple of seconds here, guys, so check it out, tune in. We're going to livestream it. It's going to be good. The Mark Meadows, an actual fighter, one of the few, a real fighter. Thank you, Mark. [...] Guilfoyle: Have the courage to do the right thing. Fight! The video was indeed authentic and was recorded on the day the pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol in an unsuccessful attempt to halt a Congressional vote to certify Joe Biden's presidential win. However, it depicted the moments before Trump addressed supporters at the Ellipse Park (which is directly south of the White House and a roughly 20-minute walk from the Capitol), but it did not show him watching a livestream of supporters breaking into and vandalizing the Capitol. We will lay out our evidence for those findings. According to an archive of Trump Jr.'s Facebook history, the video was posted to his official account with the title, 'A Little Backstage Time With POTUS Before His Speech' and garnered tens of thousands of shares. By the time of this report, the video no longer existed on the social media platform. According to video footage of the event at Ellipse Park by Bloomberg, Branigan's 'Gloria' blared through loudspeakers two times: once around 11:30 a.m. and then again about a half hour later, immediately before Trump took the stage. That audio was proof that the tent party was indeed a backstage event that showed him waiting to make his headline appearance. (An official Twitter account for Branigan, who died in 2004, said the Trump team did not have permission to use the song, and that it was 'absolutely appalling' to hear it in the viral video.) Additionally, the screens depicted in Trump Jr.'s footage showed a crowd of people in front of a stage and signs with slogans for the pre-planned event, such as 'SAVE AMERICA MARCH' and 'THE BEST IS YET TO COME!' There was no evidence of the party-goers watching footage of the nearby Capitol, which was where violence and chaos ensued. Emmanuelle Saliba, a former investigative journalist for NBC News, confirmed those findings, tweeting that Trump Jr. posted the backstage footage around noon, shortly before the president said on stage he would march with them to the Capitol to 'demand that Congress do the right thing.' (Here's more of what Trump said on stage.) During the approximately 70-minute speech, members of the far-right crowd began leaving the park and heading toward the Capitol, Saliba reported. See the below-displayed map by BBC to visualize the scene.Shortly before 1 p.m. (approximately an hour after Trump Jr. posted the livestream), posts started surfacing on social media showing extremists breaching barriers around the Capitol designed to prevent trespassing. Then, by 1:05 p.m., Saliba reported hundreds of people were charging toward the Capitol. In other words, it was true that some extremists started breaking into the federal property during Trump's speech, which immediately followed the backstage tent party. However, once he finished his remarks, he did not follow through with the pledge to join them in walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. Instead, Trump returned to the White House, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. There, officials told Haberman that Trump watched his supporters breach and vandalize the Capitol on television, while berating aides and disparaging Vice President Mike Pence for not agreeing to his agenda. Haberman wrote: The president holed up in the Oval Office, speaking with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, who was said to have been rattled by the day, and Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel. In other words, while the exact location of the president at the peak of the chaotic insurrection was unknown, no evidence showed he was at a tent party. Rather, a reputable news outlet said he was in the West Wing. At 2:38 p.m., as pressure mounted on Trump to condemn the violence, he tweeted: 'Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!' Later, he posted a video on social media sites saying he loved the rioters and that they should 'go home in peace' - footage the platforms later deleted for violating policies aiming to prevent violence and misinformation. Additionally, Twitter locked the account of @realDonaldTrump for 12 hours. By Jan. 8, The Associated Press reported: The final days of Trump's presidency are spinning toward a chaotic end as he holes up at the White House, abandoned by many aides, leading Republicans and Cabinet members. He was tweeting again after his Twitter account was reinstated, reverting to an aggressive statement that his supporters must not be 'disrespected' after he sent out a calmer Thursday video decrying the violence. On the evening of Jan. 8, Twitter announced it was permanently banning Trump from its site, citing 'risk of further incitement of violence.'Recent Updates This article was updated to note that Branigan's 'Gloria' played twice through loudspeakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally at Ellipse Park.

nan

A young boy named Dakota was air lifted to the hospital after having a seizure.

Neutral

In December 2016, a message requesting that people pray for a young boy named Dakota who was allegedly airlifted to a hospital after having a seizure was widely circulated on Facebook: Although the verbiage of the message varied from post to post, all versions contained three basic elements - The boy's name (Dakota), a short account of an emergency situation (he was airlifted to a hospital), and a call to action (please forward this message): Hey can you help get a prayer circle going for Dakota. They had to life flight him. He is having seizures. Forward this everywhere please. we need prayers for this little Boy please forward to all of your friends that prayers thank you This is a friend's grandson Many of the messages, such as the one reproduced above, also included some note regarding a familial relation: Other messages were more specific and linked the prayer requests directly to another Facebook user. Those leads, however, also resulted in dead ends. Nearly every message about Dakota lacked credible information about where or when this incident occurred, but we did find a message posted to the prayer board of the Woodland Hills Baptist Church in Longview, Texas, which may have provided some additional details (i.e., the child's full name and location) about the situation: Please pray for Dakota Wells. He is a child from Big Sandy area ... he is having continuous seizures and has been air lifted to Dallas. Please pray for his healing ... pray for his family and the Medical staff taking care of him. Thanks However, this information was inaccurate. Dakota Wells was not the name of the young boy who was airlifted to the hospital, but rather the name of the Facebook user who originally posted about the sick child. According to Wells, the young boy's name is Waylon, her cousin, and he was airlifted to the University of Mississippi Medical Center on 3 December 2016: A GoFundMe Page set up for Waylon Wells provided a little more information about the situation: Waylon was born Dec 3, 2016 son of Evan and Brandy Wells. He was airlifted to UMMC NICU within 3 hours of being born due to heart and lung complications. Prayers are being felt and greatly appreciated but the medical bills, gas and food expenses will be costly while Waylon is in the hospital. Any donation will be greatly appreciated!Help spread the word! Dakota Wells published pictures of Waylon being held by family members on 6 December 2016, three days after he was airlifted to the hospital. In early 2017, an update on his condition was published to the GoFundMe campaign's page along with clarifications pertaining to social media rumors. Waylon was released from the hospital at the time the update was published, and'doing [great]': I just wanted to update everyone on Waylon and clear up any misconceptions about his condition. Waylon does not nor did he ever have any seizures. He has Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, which is a thickening in his right heart muscle. Which he will always have to take medicine for. He will be able to live and function just like a normal child, no one will ever know anything is wrong with him just like a person that has diabetes if they don't tell you, you wouldn't know they had it. Waylon is doing GREAT! He has been home for almost 3 weeks now and is growing and developing as he should be. He sleeps and eats and is just a very content sweet baby boy. He will have routine monthly visits to his cardiologist for at least a year just to keep a check on his heart, all precautionary, he is otherwise a healthy boy! We are more Thankful for your prayers than we could ever express! I am not sure how Evan or myself would have gotten through those two weeks without all of you praying us through everything we were going through! Please continue to remember him in your daily prayers that he continues to grow strong and healthy! Thank y'all from the bottom of our hearts Although this prayer request most likely refers to Waylon Wells, the cousin of a 'Dakota' Wells, it's also possibly that this viral message refers to an incident in 2014, when a baby named Dakota when airlifted to a hospital in Bismarck. This request has also been conflated with one seeking prayers for a child shot with a nail gun.

nan

A young boy named Dakota was air lifted to the hospital after having a seizure.

Neutral

In December 2016, a message requesting that people pray for a young boy named Dakota who was allegedly airlifted to a hospital after having a seizure was widely circulated on Facebook: Although the verbiage of the message varied from post to post, all versions contained three basic elements - The boy's name (Dakota), a short account of an emergency situation (he was airlifted to a hospital), and a call to action (please forward this message): Hey can you help get a prayer circle going for Dakota. They had to life flight him. He is having seizures. Forward this everywhere please. we need prayers for this little Boy please forward to all of your friends that prayers thank you This is a friend's grandson Many of the messages, such as the one reproduced above, also included some note regarding a familial relation: Other messages were more specific and linked the prayer requests directly to another Facebook user. Those leads, however, also resulted in dead ends. Nearly every message about Dakota lacked credible information about where or when this incident occurred, but we did find a message posted to the prayer board of the Woodland Hills Baptist Church in Longview, Texas, which may have provided some additional details (i.e., the child's full name and location) about the situation: Please pray for Dakota Wells. He is a child from Big Sandy area ... he is having continuous seizures and has been air lifted to Dallas. Please pray for his healing ... pray for his family and the Medical staff taking care of him. Thanks However, this information was inaccurate. Dakota Wells was not the name of the young boy who was airlifted to the hospital, but rather the name of the Facebook user who originally posted about the sick child. According to Wells, the young boy's name is Waylon, her cousin, and he was airlifted to the University of Mississippi Medical Center on 3 December 2016: A GoFundMe Page set up for Waylon Wells provided a little more information about the situation: Waylon was born Dec 3, 2016 son of Evan and Brandy Wells. He was airlifted to UMMC NICU within 3 hours of being born due to heart and lung complications. Prayers are being felt and greatly appreciated but the medical bills, gas and food expenses will be costly while Waylon is in the hospital. Any donation will be greatly appreciated!Help spread the word! Dakota Wells published pictures of Waylon being held by family members on 6 December 2016, three days after he was airlifted to the hospital. In early 2017, an update on his condition was published to the GoFundMe campaign's page along with clarifications pertaining to social media rumors. Waylon was released from the hospital at the time the update was published, and'doing [great]': I just wanted to update everyone on Waylon and clear up any misconceptions about his condition. Waylon does not nor did he ever have any seizures. He has Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, which is a thickening in his right heart muscle. Which he will always have to take medicine for. He will be able to live and function just like a normal child, no one will ever know anything is wrong with him just like a person that has diabetes if they don't tell you, you wouldn't know they had it. Waylon is doing GREAT! He has been home for almost 3 weeks now and is growing and developing as he should be. He sleeps and eats and is just a very content sweet baby boy. He will have routine monthly visits to his cardiologist for at least a year just to keep a check on his heart, all precautionary, he is otherwise a healthy boy! We are more Thankful for your prayers than we could ever express! I am not sure how Evan or myself would have gotten through those two weeks without all of you praying us through everything we were going through! Please continue to remember him in your daily prayers that he continues to grow strong and healthy! Thank y'all from the bottom of our hearts Although this prayer request most likely refers to Waylon Wells, the cousin of a 'Dakota' Wells, it's also possibly that this viral message refers to an incident in 2014, when a baby named Dakota when airlifted to a hospital in Bismarck. This request has also been conflated with one seeking prayers for a child shot with a nail gun.

nan

A young boy named Dakota was air lifted to the hospital after having a seizure.

Neutral

In December 2016, a message requesting that people pray for a young boy named Dakota who was allegedly airlifted to a hospital after having a seizure was widely circulated on Facebook: Although the verbiage of the message varied from post to post, all versions contained three basic elements - The boy's name (Dakota), a short account of an emergency situation (he was airlifted to a hospital), and a call to action (please forward this message): Hey can you help get a prayer circle going for Dakota. They had to life flight him. He is having seizures. Forward this everywhere please. we need prayers for this little Boy please forward to all of your friends that prayers thank you This is a friend's grandson Many of the messages, such as the one reproduced above, also included some note regarding a familial relation: Other messages were more specific and linked the prayer requests directly to another Facebook user. Those leads, however, also resulted in dead ends. Nearly every message about Dakota lacked credible information about where or when this incident occurred, but we did find a message posted to the prayer board of the Woodland Hills Baptist Church in Longview, Texas, which may have provided some additional details (i.e., the child's full name and location) about the situation: Please pray for Dakota Wells. He is a child from Big Sandy area ... he is having continuous seizures and has been air lifted to Dallas. Please pray for his healing ... pray for his family and the Medical staff taking care of him. Thanks However, this information was inaccurate. Dakota Wells was not the name of the young boy who was airlifted to the hospital, but rather the name of the Facebook user who originally posted about the sick child. According to Wells, the young boy's name is Waylon, her cousin, and he was airlifted to the University of Mississippi Medical Center on 3 December 2016: A GoFundMe Page set up for Waylon Wells provided a little more information about the situation: Waylon was born Dec 3, 2016 son of Evan and Brandy Wells. He was airlifted to UMMC NICU within 3 hours of being born due to heart and lung complications. Prayers are being felt and greatly appreciated but the medical bills, gas and food expenses will be costly while Waylon is in the hospital. Any donation will be greatly appreciated!Help spread the word! Dakota Wells published pictures of Waylon being held by family members on 6 December 2016, three days after he was airlifted to the hospital. In early 2017, an update on his condition was published to the GoFundMe campaign's page along with clarifications pertaining to social media rumors. Waylon was released from the hospital at the time the update was published, and'doing [great]': I just wanted to update everyone on Waylon and clear up any misconceptions about his condition. Waylon does not nor did he ever have any seizures. He has Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, which is a thickening in his right heart muscle. Which he will always have to take medicine for. He will be able to live and function just like a normal child, no one will ever know anything is wrong with him just like a person that has diabetes if they don't tell you, you wouldn't know they had it. Waylon is doing GREAT! He has been home for almost 3 weeks now and is growing and developing as he should be. He sleeps and eats and is just a very content sweet baby boy. He will have routine monthly visits to his cardiologist for at least a year just to keep a check on his heart, all precautionary, he is otherwise a healthy boy! We are more Thankful for your prayers than we could ever express! I am not sure how Evan or myself would have gotten through those two weeks without all of you praying us through everything we were going through! Please continue to remember him in your daily prayers that he continues to grow strong and healthy! Thank y'all from the bottom of our hearts Although this prayer request most likely refers to Waylon Wells, the cousin of a 'Dakota' Wells, it's also possibly that this viral message refers to an incident in 2014, when a baby named Dakota when airlifted to a hospital in Bismarck. This request has also been conflated with one seeking prayers for a child shot with a nail gun.

nan

A young boy named Dakota was air lifted to the hospital after having a seizure.

Neutral

In December 2016, a message requesting that people pray for a young boy named Dakota who was allegedly airlifted to a hospital after having a seizure was widely circulated on Facebook: Although the verbiage of the message varied from post to post, all versions contained three basic elements - The boy's name (Dakota), a short account of an emergency situation (he was airlifted to a hospital), and a call to action (please forward this message): Hey can you help get a prayer circle going for Dakota. They had to life flight him. He is having seizures. Forward this everywhere please. we need prayers for this little Boy please forward to all of your friends that prayers thank you This is a friend's grandson Many of the messages, such as the one reproduced above, also included some note regarding a familial relation: Other messages were more specific and linked the prayer requests directly to another Facebook user. Those leads, however, also resulted in dead ends. Nearly every message about Dakota lacked credible information about where or when this incident occurred, but we did find a message posted to the prayer board of the Woodland Hills Baptist Church in Longview, Texas, which may have provided some additional details (i.e., the child's full name and location) about the situation: Please pray for Dakota Wells. He is a child from Big Sandy area ... he is having continuous seizures and has been air lifted to Dallas. Please pray for his healing ... pray for his family and the Medical staff taking care of him. Thanks However, this information was inaccurate. Dakota Wells was not the name of the young boy who was airlifted to the hospital, but rather the name of the Facebook user who originally posted about the sick child. According to Wells, the young boy's name is Waylon, her cousin, and he was airlifted to the University of Mississippi Medical Center on 3 December 2016: A GoFundMe Page set up for Waylon Wells provided a little more information about the situation: Waylon was born Dec 3, 2016 son of Evan and Brandy Wells. He was airlifted to UMMC NICU within 3 hours of being born due to heart and lung complications. Prayers are being felt and greatly appreciated but the medical bills, gas and food expenses will be costly while Waylon is in the hospital. Any donation will be greatly appreciated!Help spread the word! Dakota Wells published pictures of Waylon being held by family members on 6 December 2016, three days after he was airlifted to the hospital. In early 2017, an update on his condition was published to the GoFundMe campaign's page along with clarifications pertaining to social media rumors. Waylon was released from the hospital at the time the update was published, and'doing [great]': I just wanted to update everyone on Waylon and clear up any misconceptions about his condition. Waylon does not nor did he ever have any seizures. He has Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, which is a thickening in his right heart muscle. Which he will always have to take medicine for. He will be able to live and function just like a normal child, no one will ever know anything is wrong with him just like a person that has diabetes if they don't tell you, you wouldn't know they had it. Waylon is doing GREAT! He has been home for almost 3 weeks now and is growing and developing as he should be. He sleeps and eats and is just a very content sweet baby boy. He will have routine monthly visits to his cardiologist for at least a year just to keep a check on his heart, all precautionary, he is otherwise a healthy boy! We are more Thankful for your prayers than we could ever express! I am not sure how Evan or myself would have gotten through those two weeks without all of you praying us through everything we were going through! Please continue to remember him in your daily prayers that he continues to grow strong and healthy! Thank y'all from the bottom of our hearts Although this prayer request most likely refers to Waylon Wells, the cousin of a 'Dakota' Wells, it's also possibly that this viral message refers to an incident in 2014, when a baby named Dakota when airlifted to a hospital in Bismarck. This request has also been conflated with one seeking prayers for a child shot with a nail gun.

nan

A photograph shows the only known golden zebra in existence, living at an animal sanctuary in Hawaii.

Neutral

A photograph purportedly showing the only known golden zebra in existence has been circulated on the Internet since at least August 2013: The photograph actually shows a zebra named Zoe who resides at Hawaii's Three Ring Ranch Animal Sanctuary and exhibits a rare coloring condition known as amelanosis: Her unusual color is due to her having 'amelanosis.' She is not an albino. She has striking gold stripes and blue eyes. In horses, there is a similar condition called 'Lethal White Foal Syndrome' which is associated with the occurrence of other serious birth defects. Although this color variation occasionally occurs in wild herds, the animals would likely survive only a few days at best. This is probably because zebras use their stripes as camouflage to blend in with the rest of herd. While the condition Zoe exhibits does alter the zebra's color, the image frequently associated with her has been doctored to make her look unrealistically 'golden.' The original photograph was taken in 2007 by Bill Adams and looks quite different: Zoe may not be as golden as the viral photo makes her out to be, but she is still a very rare animal. According to the Three Ring Ranch Animal Sanctuary, only two other 'white zebras' have been found in captivity: There have been reports of at least two other 'white' zebras in captivity. One in Germany about a hundred years ago and another at a zoo in Tokyo in the 1970's. At this time we know of only one other zebra like Zoe alive.

nan

A photograph shows the only known golden zebra in existence, living at an animal sanctuary in Hawaii.

Neutral

A photograph purportedly showing the only known golden zebra in existence has been circulated on the Internet since at least August 2013: The photograph actually shows a zebra named Zoe who resides at Hawaii's Three Ring Ranch Animal Sanctuary and exhibits a rare coloring condition known as amelanosis: Her unusual color is due to her having 'amelanosis.' She is not an albino. She has striking gold stripes and blue eyes. In horses, there is a similar condition called 'Lethal White Foal Syndrome' which is associated with the occurrence of other serious birth defects. Although this color variation occasionally occurs in wild herds, the animals would likely survive only a few days at best. This is probably because zebras use their stripes as camouflage to blend in with the rest of herd. While the condition Zoe exhibits does alter the zebra's color, the image frequently associated with her has been doctored to make her look unrealistically 'golden.' The original photograph was taken in 2007 by Bill Adams and looks quite different: Zoe may not be as golden as the viral photo makes her out to be, but she is still a very rare animal. According to the Three Ring Ranch Animal Sanctuary, only two other 'white zebras' have been found in captivity: There have been reports of at least two other 'white' zebras in captivity. One in Germany about a hundred years ago and another at a zoo in Tokyo in the 1970's. At this time we know of only one other zebra like Zoe alive.

nan

Donald Trump supporters made racist comments over CB radios during a pro-Trump parade.

Neutral

On 17 August 2016, the liberal blog Winning Democrats posted a YouTube video alleging to show images of a purported parade in support of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. The video features what it claims to be audio transmissions over CB radios of drivers participating in the event: A convoy of douchebags traveling from Wrentham to Foxboro consisted of every piece of trash the area had to offer. The Massachusetts redneck is no different from anywhere else, with the exception that only a few are stupid enough to carry a confederate flag because of their 'heritage.' Anticipating the ignorance that was about to happen, a recording session was planned and executed that can be used anytime you hear Trump supporters say, 'We're not racists, we just aren't politically correct.' Here's what they mean by that: 'Lynch all the f*cking n*ggers' is definitely NOT politically correct. It's not correct in any way. None of what these imbeciles said is correct in any way. The video, which was posted by a YouTube user with the handle 'Celebrate The GOPocalypse,' claims the event took place in Wrentham (misspelled as 'Wrenthem'), Massachusetts on 30 July 2016: In the video, male voices can be heard using racial slurs and discussing violence against people of color, including talk of lynching. While the video was shared widely across the Internet by liberal blogs, we found no evidence that the comments were made by drivers participating in the parade or that the events occurred as claimed. One truck in the video's images does bear writing that reads 'Trump' and 'Make America Great Again' (Trump's campaign logo) on its side, but most of the vehicles are adorned with American, Confederate and yellow Gadsden flags. It's unclear what the event is actually about, and the video provides no proof it is in fact a parade for Trump (although some of the participants may have been Trump supporters). Further, it's unclear where the audio of the supposed radio transmissions come from. They easily could have been recorded elsewhere, by people uninvolved with the event, and edited into the video. The fact that the comments seem to be random racist soundbites, as opposed to actual conversations between drivers, raises doubts about the credibility of the video.

nan

Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris had an extramarital affair with former San Francisco Mayor and State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who gave her two political appointments that launched her political career.

Neutral

On Aug. 11, 2020, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, selected U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as his running mate. Harris, who is the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, made history as the first woman of color nominated as vice president on a major party ticket. Predictably, the internet lit up with rumors about Harris, who has been married to her husband, attorney Douglas Emhoff, since 2014. Snopes readers asked about articles and memes circulating on social media stating that years prior, Harris had an 'extramarital' affair with former San Francisco Mayor and California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, with some claiming that Harris' political success was achieved by being Brown's so-called mistress. A tawdry headline from Teaparty.org story read, 'Flashback: Kamala Harris Launched Her Political Career In Bedroom As Mistress Of Married Mayor Willie Brown.' Here's an example of a meme circulating on Facebook, which appears to have been generated during Harris' run in the presidential primaries: These narratives are misleading by way of exaggeration. Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, but Brown had been estranged from his wife since 1981. Brown did appoint Harris to two political posts in 1994 while he served as Speaker of the California Assembly, but that was years before Harris won her first election in 2003. She was already working as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County when she took on the appointments. It's never been a secret Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, although it may not be well known outside political circles in California. Brown addressed their past relationship in a terse piece published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 26, 2019, a day before Harris officially launched her presidential campaign: Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. The history of the relationship and political appointments Brown gave Harris have also been reported in California-based news outlets for years. Los Angeles Magazine reported in 2019: Willie Brown was a fixture in California politics for years, serving as speaker of the state assembly for 15 years, and known as something of an unofficial deal-maker and influencer. He first met Harris in 1994, when she was an assistant district attorney in Alameda County. He was 60 years old at the time, and had been estranged from his wife, Blanche Brown, since 1981. In his capacity as speaker, Brown appointed Harris to two political positions. The first was a six-month appointment to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board; the second was a role on the Medical Assistance Commission, a body tasked with negotiating contracts to control Medi-Cal costs. At the time, Brown had a reputation for filling many openings with his personal associates and inner circle; when Harris vacated the Appeals Board gig, he replaced her with his longtime buddy Philip S. Ryan. Harris ended the relationship-which was conducted in the open and frequently reported on at the time-in late 1995, shortly before Brown was sworn in for his first of two terms as mayor of San Francisco. Harris didn't run for political office until well after her relationship with Brown ended. In 2003, she made a successful bid for the office of San Francisco district attorney, a position she held until she was elected to serve as the attorney general of California, taking office in 2011. She held that post until she was elected in 2016 to serve in the United States Senate representing the state of California. Harris has been beset by allegations that Brown influenced her career for years. At the time of her first run for office for San Francisco district attorney, SF Weekly quoted Harris distancing herself from Brown: I refuse to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him - and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me. His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing. In regards to the political appointments, Harris went on to state: These jobs were created before I was born. Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work. I worked hard to keep St. Luke's Hospital [in San Francisco's Mission neighborhood] open. I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs. I mean, if you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no It's true that Harris dated Brown between 1994 and 1995. During that time, when he was serving as speaker of the California assembly, Brown gave Harris two political appointments. Although it's true that Brown was married at that time, the relationship was no secret, since Brown had long been separated from his wife. All of Harris' electoral victories occurred years after her relationship with Brown ended. We rate this claim 'Mixture,' because while there are elements of objective fact - Brown and Harris dated, Brown appointed Harris to two posts - other elements are sensationalized and misleading.

nan

Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris had an extramarital affair with former San Francisco Mayor and State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who gave her two political appointments that launched her political career.

Neutral

On Aug. 11, 2020, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, selected U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as his running mate. Harris, who is the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, made history as the first woman of color nominated as vice president on a major party ticket. Predictably, the internet lit up with rumors about Harris, who has been married to her husband, attorney Douglas Emhoff, since 2014. Snopes readers asked about articles and memes circulating on social media stating that years prior, Harris had an 'extramarital' affair with former San Francisco Mayor and California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, with some claiming that Harris' political success was achieved by being Brown's so-called mistress. A tawdry headline from Teaparty.org story read, 'Flashback: Kamala Harris Launched Her Political Career In Bedroom As Mistress Of Married Mayor Willie Brown.' Here's an example of a meme circulating on Facebook, which appears to have been generated during Harris' run in the presidential primaries: These narratives are misleading by way of exaggeration. Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, but Brown had been estranged from his wife since 1981. Brown did appoint Harris to two political posts in 1994 while he served as Speaker of the California Assembly, but that was years before Harris won her first election in 2003. She was already working as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County when she took on the appointments. It's never been a secret Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, although it may not be well known outside political circles in California. Brown addressed their past relationship in a terse piece published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 26, 2019, a day before Harris officially launched her presidential campaign: Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. The history of the relationship and political appointments Brown gave Harris have also been reported in California-based news outlets for years. Los Angeles Magazine reported in 2019: Willie Brown was a fixture in California politics for years, serving as speaker of the state assembly for 15 years, and known as something of an unofficial deal-maker and influencer. He first met Harris in 1994, when she was an assistant district attorney in Alameda County. He was 60 years old at the time, and had been estranged from his wife, Blanche Brown, since 1981. In his capacity as speaker, Brown appointed Harris to two political positions. The first was a six-month appointment to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board; the second was a role on the Medical Assistance Commission, a body tasked with negotiating contracts to control Medi-Cal costs. At the time, Brown had a reputation for filling many openings with his personal associates and inner circle; when Harris vacated the Appeals Board gig, he replaced her with his longtime buddy Philip S. Ryan. Harris ended the relationship-which was conducted in the open and frequently reported on at the time-in late 1995, shortly before Brown was sworn in for his first of two terms as mayor of San Francisco. Harris didn't run for political office until well after her relationship with Brown ended. In 2003, she made a successful bid for the office of San Francisco district attorney, a position she held until she was elected to serve as the attorney general of California, taking office in 2011. She held that post until she was elected in 2016 to serve in the United States Senate representing the state of California. Harris has been beset by allegations that Brown influenced her career for years. At the time of her first run for office for San Francisco district attorney, SF Weekly quoted Harris distancing herself from Brown: I refuse to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him - and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me. His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing. In regards to the political appointments, Harris went on to state: These jobs were created before I was born. Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work. I worked hard to keep St. Luke's Hospital [in San Francisco's Mission neighborhood] open. I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs. I mean, if you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no It's true that Harris dated Brown between 1994 and 1995. During that time, when he was serving as speaker of the California assembly, Brown gave Harris two political appointments. Although it's true that Brown was married at that time, the relationship was no secret, since Brown had long been separated from his wife. All of Harris' electoral victories occurred years after her relationship with Brown ended. We rate this claim 'Mixture,' because while there are elements of objective fact - Brown and Harris dated, Brown appointed Harris to two posts - other elements are sensationalized and misleading.

nan

Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris had an extramarital affair with former San Francisco Mayor and State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who gave her two political appointments that launched her political career.

Neutral

On Aug. 11, 2020, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, selected U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as his running mate. Harris, who is the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, made history as the first woman of color nominated as vice president on a major party ticket. Predictably, the internet lit up with rumors about Harris, who has been married to her husband, attorney Douglas Emhoff, since 2014. Snopes readers asked about articles and memes circulating on social media stating that years prior, Harris had an 'extramarital' affair with former San Francisco Mayor and California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, with some claiming that Harris' political success was achieved by being Brown's so-called mistress. A tawdry headline from Teaparty.org story read, 'Flashback: Kamala Harris Launched Her Political Career In Bedroom As Mistress Of Married Mayor Willie Brown.' Here's an example of a meme circulating on Facebook, which appears to have been generated during Harris' run in the presidential primaries: These narratives are misleading by way of exaggeration. Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, but Brown had been estranged from his wife since 1981. Brown did appoint Harris to two political posts in 1994 while he served as Speaker of the California Assembly, but that was years before Harris won her first election in 2003. She was already working as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County when she took on the appointments. It's never been a secret Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, although it may not be well known outside political circles in California. Brown addressed their past relationship in a terse piece published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 26, 2019, a day before Harris officially launched her presidential campaign: Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. The history of the relationship and political appointments Brown gave Harris have also been reported in California-based news outlets for years. Los Angeles Magazine reported in 2019: Willie Brown was a fixture in California politics for years, serving as speaker of the state assembly for 15 years, and known as something of an unofficial deal-maker and influencer. He first met Harris in 1994, when she was an assistant district attorney in Alameda County. He was 60 years old at the time, and had been estranged from his wife, Blanche Brown, since 1981. In his capacity as speaker, Brown appointed Harris to two political positions. The first was a six-month appointment to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board; the second was a role on the Medical Assistance Commission, a body tasked with negotiating contracts to control Medi-Cal costs. At the time, Brown had a reputation for filling many openings with his personal associates and inner circle; when Harris vacated the Appeals Board gig, he replaced her with his longtime buddy Philip S. Ryan. Harris ended the relationship-which was conducted in the open and frequently reported on at the time-in late 1995, shortly before Brown was sworn in for his first of two terms as mayor of San Francisco. Harris didn't run for political office until well after her relationship with Brown ended. In 2003, she made a successful bid for the office of San Francisco district attorney, a position she held until she was elected to serve as the attorney general of California, taking office in 2011. She held that post until she was elected in 2016 to serve in the United States Senate representing the state of California. Harris has been beset by allegations that Brown influenced her career for years. At the time of her first run for office for San Francisco district attorney, SF Weekly quoted Harris distancing herself from Brown: I refuse to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him - and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me. His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing. In regards to the political appointments, Harris went on to state: These jobs were created before I was born. Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work. I worked hard to keep St. Luke's Hospital [in San Francisco's Mission neighborhood] open. I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs. I mean, if you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no It's true that Harris dated Brown between 1994 and 1995. During that time, when he was serving as speaker of the California assembly, Brown gave Harris two political appointments. Although it's true that Brown was married at that time, the relationship was no secret, since Brown had long been separated from his wife. All of Harris' electoral victories occurred years after her relationship with Brown ended. We rate this claim 'Mixture,' because while there are elements of objective fact - Brown and Harris dated, Brown appointed Harris to two posts - other elements are sensationalized and misleading.

nan

Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris had an extramarital affair with former San Francisco Mayor and State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who gave her two political appointments that launched her political career.

Neutral

On Aug. 11, 2020, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, selected U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as his running mate. Harris, who is the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, made history as the first woman of color nominated as vice president on a major party ticket. Predictably, the internet lit up with rumors about Harris, who has been married to her husband, attorney Douglas Emhoff, since 2014. Snopes readers asked about articles and memes circulating on social media stating that years prior, Harris had an 'extramarital' affair with former San Francisco Mayor and California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, with some claiming that Harris' political success was achieved by being Brown's so-called mistress. A tawdry headline from Teaparty.org story read, 'Flashback: Kamala Harris Launched Her Political Career In Bedroom As Mistress Of Married Mayor Willie Brown.' Here's an example of a meme circulating on Facebook, which appears to have been generated during Harris' run in the presidential primaries: These narratives are misleading by way of exaggeration. Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, but Brown had been estranged from his wife since 1981. Brown did appoint Harris to two political posts in 1994 while he served as Speaker of the California Assembly, but that was years before Harris won her first election in 2003. She was already working as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County when she took on the appointments. It's never been a secret Harris dated Brown in the mid-1990s, although it may not be well known outside political circles in California. Brown addressed their past relationship in a terse piece published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 26, 2019, a day before Harris officially launched her presidential campaign: Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. The history of the relationship and political appointments Brown gave Harris have also been reported in California-based news outlets for years. Los Angeles Magazine reported in 2019: Willie Brown was a fixture in California politics for years, serving as speaker of the state assembly for 15 years, and known as something of an unofficial deal-maker and influencer. He first met Harris in 1994, when she was an assistant district attorney in Alameda County. He was 60 years old at the time, and had been estranged from his wife, Blanche Brown, since 1981. In his capacity as speaker, Brown appointed Harris to two political positions. The first was a six-month appointment to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board; the second was a role on the Medical Assistance Commission, a body tasked with negotiating contracts to control Medi-Cal costs. At the time, Brown had a reputation for filling many openings with his personal associates and inner circle; when Harris vacated the Appeals Board gig, he replaced her with his longtime buddy Philip S. Ryan. Harris ended the relationship-which was conducted in the open and frequently reported on at the time-in late 1995, shortly before Brown was sworn in for his first of two terms as mayor of San Francisco. Harris didn't run for political office until well after her relationship with Brown ended. In 2003, she made a successful bid for the office of San Francisco district attorney, a position she held until she was elected to serve as the attorney general of California, taking office in 2011. She held that post until she was elected in 2016 to serve in the United States Senate representing the state of California. Harris has been beset by allegations that Brown influenced her career for years. At the time of her first run for office for San Francisco district attorney, SF Weekly quoted Harris distancing herself from Brown: I refuse to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him - and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me. His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing. In regards to the political appointments, Harris went on to state: These jobs were created before I was born. Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work. I worked hard to keep St. Luke's Hospital [in San Francisco's Mission neighborhood] open. I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs. I mean, if you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no It's true that Harris dated Brown between 1994 and 1995. During that time, when he was serving as speaker of the California assembly, Brown gave Harris two political appointments. Although it's true that Brown was married at that time, the relationship was no secret, since Brown had long been separated from his wife. All of Harris' electoral victories occurred years after her relationship with Brown ended. We rate this claim 'Mixture,' because while there are elements of objective fact - Brown and Harris dated, Brown appointed Harris to two posts - other elements are sensationalized and misleading.

nan

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States.

Neutral

On Aug. 28, 2019, a tweet from the San Francisco Chonicle's Tal Kopan reported that newly issued guidance from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) meant that children born to U.S. service members stationed outside the United States would not automatically be considered U.S. citizens: Today USCIS issued guidance that DHS 'no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as 'residing in the United States' for purposes of acquiring citizenship' -https://t.co/IRNR21Qm4P - Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) August 28, 2019 This story was picked up by other news outlets, such as Task and Purpose, which reported it as fact: Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be 'residing in the United States,' and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship. However, some outlets such as NBC then tweeted corrections and said the new policy only applied to children adopted by service members stationed overseas: Correction: Experts who have looked at new USCIS policy say it applies if a service member adopts a child overseas, but children born to service members on deployment would still automatically get citizenship. I deleted tweets with the incorrect info. https://t.co/xeu8I3zrkJ - Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019 NBC News' subsequent update noted that the changes would not in fact apply to the majority of children born to U.S. two citizens serving abroad, but primarily to children born to non-citizen parents: The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to non-citizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized. In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status needed for citizenship to those children. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected. Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes were not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media. The Military Times reported that the policy change would affect children born to persons who are serving in the U.S. military but are not themselves U.S. citizens: This policy update does not affect anyone who is born a U.S. citizen, period,' Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, said in a statement. 'This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.' Examples of that situation include: o A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or, o A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany. The policy won't affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said. But the new policy places an unfair burden on children born to non-citizen service members, according to a spokesman for a D.C.-based federal employment and military law firm. 'If both parents are U.S. citizens, their children have derivative citizenship regardless, so this is a penalty placed upon those who would serve their country and who do not have a say where they are stationed,' Shaun May of the Federal Practice Groups told Military Times in a statement. An Associated Press report observed that the policy change would likely 'affect between 20 and 25 people per year': There is a policy change and it will affect between 20 and 25 people per year, officials said. The change is a residency requirement shift and affects U.S. service members or government employees who are green cardholders and have a child while on duty overseas or adopt a child who is not a citizen or are the stepparent of a foreign-born child. Previously, the agency essentially waived U.S. residency requirements for those people to apply for a passport for their child, but the officials said the State Department would then decline the application for not fitting the requirements. On Aug. 29, the USCIS released a graphic explaining precisely who will be affected by the policy change, and how: Courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

nan

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States.

Neutral

On Aug. 28, 2019, a tweet from the San Francisco Chonicle's Tal Kopan reported that newly issued guidance from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) meant that children born to U.S. service members stationed outside the United States would not automatically be considered U.S. citizens: Today USCIS issued guidance that DHS 'no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as 'residing in the United States' for purposes of acquiring citizenship' -https://t.co/IRNR21Qm4P - Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) August 28, 2019 This story was picked up by other news outlets, such as Task and Purpose, which reported it as fact: Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be 'residing in the United States,' and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship. However, some outlets such as NBC then tweeted corrections and said the new policy only applied to children adopted by service members stationed overseas: Correction: Experts who have looked at new USCIS policy say it applies if a service member adopts a child overseas, but children born to service members on deployment would still automatically get citizenship. I deleted tweets with the incorrect info. https://t.co/xeu8I3zrkJ - Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019 NBC News' subsequent update noted that the changes would not in fact apply to the majority of children born to U.S. two citizens serving abroad, but primarily to children born to non-citizen parents: The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to non-citizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized. In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status needed for citizenship to those children. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected. Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes were not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media. The Military Times reported that the policy change would affect children born to persons who are serving in the U.S. military but are not themselves U.S. citizens: This policy update does not affect anyone who is born a U.S. citizen, period,' Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, said in a statement. 'This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.' Examples of that situation include: o A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or, o A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany. The policy won't affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said. But the new policy places an unfair burden on children born to non-citizen service members, according to a spokesman for a D.C.-based federal employment and military law firm. 'If both parents are U.S. citizens, their children have derivative citizenship regardless, so this is a penalty placed upon those who would serve their country and who do not have a say where they are stationed,' Shaun May of the Federal Practice Groups told Military Times in a statement. An Associated Press report observed that the policy change would likely 'affect between 20 and 25 people per year': There is a policy change and it will affect between 20 and 25 people per year, officials said. The change is a residency requirement shift and affects U.S. service members or government employees who are green cardholders and have a child while on duty overseas or adopt a child who is not a citizen or are the stepparent of a foreign-born child. Previously, the agency essentially waived U.S. residency requirements for those people to apply for a passport for their child, but the officials said the State Department would then decline the application for not fitting the requirements. On Aug. 29, the USCIS released a graphic explaining precisely who will be affected by the policy change, and how: Courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

nan

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States.

Neutral

On Aug. 28, 2019, a tweet from the San Francisco Chonicle's Tal Kopan reported that newly issued guidance from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) meant that children born to U.S. service members stationed outside the United States would not automatically be considered U.S. citizens: Today USCIS issued guidance that DHS 'no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as 'residing in the United States' for purposes of acquiring citizenship' -https://t.co/IRNR21Qm4P - Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) August 28, 2019 This story was picked up by other news outlets, such as Task and Purpose, which reported it as fact: Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be 'residing in the United States,' and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship. However, some outlets such as NBC then tweeted corrections and said the new policy only applied to children adopted by service members stationed overseas: Correction: Experts who have looked at new USCIS policy say it applies if a service member adopts a child overseas, but children born to service members on deployment would still automatically get citizenship. I deleted tweets with the incorrect info. https://t.co/xeu8I3zrkJ - Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019 NBC News' subsequent update noted that the changes would not in fact apply to the majority of children born to U.S. two citizens serving abroad, but primarily to children born to non-citizen parents: The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to non-citizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized. In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status needed for citizenship to those children. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected. Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes were not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media. The Military Times reported that the policy change would affect children born to persons who are serving in the U.S. military but are not themselves U.S. citizens: This policy update does not affect anyone who is born a U.S. citizen, period,' Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, said in a statement. 'This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.' Examples of that situation include: o A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or, o A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany. The policy won't affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said. But the new policy places an unfair burden on children born to non-citizen service members, according to a spokesman for a D.C.-based federal employment and military law firm. 'If both parents are U.S. citizens, their children have derivative citizenship regardless, so this is a penalty placed upon those who would serve their country and who do not have a say where they are stationed,' Shaun May of the Federal Practice Groups told Military Times in a statement. An Associated Press report observed that the policy change would likely 'affect between 20 and 25 people per year': There is a policy change and it will affect between 20 and 25 people per year, officials said. The change is a residency requirement shift and affects U.S. service members or government employees who are green cardholders and have a child while on duty overseas or adopt a child who is not a citizen or are the stepparent of a foreign-born child. Previously, the agency essentially waived U.S. residency requirements for those people to apply for a passport for their child, but the officials said the State Department would then decline the application for not fitting the requirements. On Aug. 29, the USCIS released a graphic explaining precisely who will be affected by the policy change, and how: Courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

nan

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States.

Neutral

On Aug. 28, 2019, a tweet from the San Francisco Chonicle's Tal Kopan reported that newly issued guidance from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) meant that children born to U.S. service members stationed outside the United States would not automatically be considered U.S. citizens: Today USCIS issued guidance that DHS 'no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as 'residing in the United States' for purposes of acquiring citizenship' -https://t.co/IRNR21Qm4P - Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) August 28, 2019 This story was picked up by other news outlets, such as Task and Purpose, which reported it as fact: Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be 'residing in the United States,' and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship. However, some outlets such as NBC then tweeted corrections and said the new policy only applied to children adopted by service members stationed overseas: Correction: Experts who have looked at new USCIS policy say it applies if a service member adopts a child overseas, but children born to service members on deployment would still automatically get citizenship. I deleted tweets with the incorrect info. https://t.co/xeu8I3zrkJ - Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019 NBC News' subsequent update noted that the changes would not in fact apply to the majority of children born to U.S. two citizens serving abroad, but primarily to children born to non-citizen parents: The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to non-citizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized. In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status needed for citizenship to those children. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected. Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes were not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media. The Military Times reported that the policy change would affect children born to persons who are serving in the U.S. military but are not themselves U.S. citizens: This policy update does not affect anyone who is born a U.S. citizen, period,' Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, said in a statement. 'This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.' Examples of that situation include: o A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or, o A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany. The policy won't affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said. But the new policy places an unfair burden on children born to non-citizen service members, according to a spokesman for a D.C.-based federal employment and military law firm. 'If both parents are U.S. citizens, their children have derivative citizenship regardless, so this is a penalty placed upon those who would serve their country and who do not have a say where they are stationed,' Shaun May of the Federal Practice Groups told Military Times in a statement. An Associated Press report observed that the policy change would likely 'affect between 20 and 25 people per year': There is a policy change and it will affect between 20 and 25 people per year, officials said. The change is a residency requirement shift and affects U.S. service members or government employees who are green cardholders and have a child while on duty overseas or adopt a child who is not a citizen or are the stepparent of a foreign-born child. Previously, the agency essentially waived U.S. residency requirements for those people to apply for a passport for their child, but the officials said the State Department would then decline the application for not fitting the requirements. On Aug. 29, the USCIS released a graphic explaining precisely who will be affected by the policy change, and how: Courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

nan

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States.

Neutral

On Aug. 28, 2019, a tweet from the San Francisco Chonicle's Tal Kopan reported that newly issued guidance from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) meant that children born to U.S. service members stationed outside the United States would not automatically be considered U.S. citizens: Today USCIS issued guidance that DHS 'no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as 'residing in the United States' for purposes of acquiring citizenship' -https://t.co/IRNR21Qm4P - Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) August 28, 2019 This story was picked up by other news outlets, such as Task and Purpose, which reported it as fact: Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be 'residing in the United States,' and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship. However, some outlets such as NBC then tweeted corrections and said the new policy only applied to children adopted by service members stationed overseas: Correction: Experts who have looked at new USCIS policy say it applies if a service member adopts a child overseas, but children born to service members on deployment would still automatically get citizenship. I deleted tweets with the incorrect info. https://t.co/xeu8I3zrkJ - Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019 NBC News' subsequent update noted that the changes would not in fact apply to the majority of children born to U.S. two citizens serving abroad, but primarily to children born to non-citizen parents: The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to non-citizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized. In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status needed for citizenship to those children. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected. Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes were not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media. The Military Times reported that the policy change would affect children born to persons who are serving in the U.S. military but are not themselves U.S. citizens: This policy update does not affect anyone who is born a U.S. citizen, period,' Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, said in a statement. 'This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.' Examples of that situation include: o A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or, o A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany. The policy won't affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said. But the new policy places an unfair burden on children born to non-citizen service members, according to a spokesman for a D.C.-based federal employment and military law firm. 'If both parents are U.S. citizens, their children have derivative citizenship regardless, so this is a penalty placed upon those who would serve their country and who do not have a say where they are stationed,' Shaun May of the Federal Practice Groups told Military Times in a statement. An Associated Press report observed that the policy change would likely 'affect between 20 and 25 people per year': There is a policy change and it will affect between 20 and 25 people per year, officials said. The change is a residency requirement shift and affects U.S. service members or government employees who are green cardholders and have a child while on duty overseas or adopt a child who is not a citizen or are the stepparent of a foreign-born child. Previously, the agency essentially waived U.S. residency requirements for those people to apply for a passport for their child, but the officials said the State Department would then decline the application for not fitting the requirements. On Aug. 29, the USCIS released a graphic explaining precisely who will be affected by the policy change, and how: Courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

nan

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States.

Neutral

On Aug. 28, 2019, a tweet from the San Francisco Chonicle's Tal Kopan reported that newly issued guidance from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) meant that children born to U.S. service members stationed outside the United States would not automatically be considered U.S. citizens: Today USCIS issued guidance that DHS 'no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as 'residing in the United States' for purposes of acquiring citizenship' -https://t.co/IRNR21Qm4P - Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) August 28, 2019 This story was picked up by other news outlets, such as Task and Purpose, which reported it as fact: Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be 'residing in the United States,' and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship. However, some outlets such as NBC then tweeted corrections and said the new policy only applied to children adopted by service members stationed overseas: Correction: Experts who have looked at new USCIS policy say it applies if a service member adopts a child overseas, but children born to service members on deployment would still automatically get citizenship. I deleted tweets with the incorrect info. https://t.co/xeu8I3zrkJ - Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019 NBC News' subsequent update noted that the changes would not in fact apply to the majority of children born to U.S. two citizens serving abroad, but primarily to children born to non-citizen parents: The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to non-citizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized. In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status needed for citizenship to those children. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected. Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes were not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media. The Military Times reported that the policy change would affect children born to persons who are serving in the U.S. military but are not themselves U.S. citizens: This policy update does not affect anyone who is born a U.S. citizen, period,' Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, said in a statement. 'This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.' Examples of that situation include: o A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or, o A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany. The policy won't affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said. But the new policy places an unfair burden on children born to non-citizen service members, according to a spokesman for a D.C.-based federal employment and military law firm. 'If both parents are U.S. citizens, their children have derivative citizenship regardless, so this is a penalty placed upon those who would serve their country and who do not have a say where they are stationed,' Shaun May of the Federal Practice Groups told Military Times in a statement. An Associated Press report observed that the policy change would likely 'affect between 20 and 25 people per year': There is a policy change and it will affect between 20 and 25 people per year, officials said. The change is a residency requirement shift and affects U.S. service members or government employees who are green cardholders and have a child while on duty overseas or adopt a child who is not a citizen or are the stepparent of a foreign-born child. Previously, the agency essentially waived U.S. residency requirements for those people to apply for a passport for their child, but the officials said the State Department would then decline the application for not fitting the requirements. On Aug. 29, the USCIS released a graphic explaining precisely who will be affected by the policy change, and how: Courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

nan

A 30-year-old woman was partially buried during a funeral service in 1915, only to be found alive inside the coffin by her grieving sister.

Neutral

One of humanity's most historically pervasive fears is either being buried alive or waking up six feet underground to find that you have been mistaken for dead. Though rare, such events have occurred from time to time, and they form the basis of an entire book by Jan Bondeson titled Buried Alive: The Terrifying History of Our Most Primal Fear. This book, published in 2001, is the primary source of online claims about a woman named Essie Dunbar who according to legend was pronounced dead following a seizure, was partially buried during her funeral service, and was then exhumed for the benefit of her grieving sister who had arrived late. When the coffin was opened, the story goes, Dunbar was found to be both alive and awake: In the summer of 1915, Dr. D. K. Briggs of Blackville, South Carolina, was called to attend the thirty-year-old black woman Essie Dunbar, who had suffered an attack of epilepsy. He found no signs of life and declared her dead. The corpse was put in a wooden coffin and the funeral arranged for eleven in the following morning, to give Essie's sister, who lived in a neighboring town, the chance to participate. Although the ceremony was a lengthy one, with three preachers taking turns to perform, the sister had still not arrived when Essie's coffin was lowered into its six-foot-deep grave. She appeared a few minutes later, however, and the ministers agreed to dig up the coffin so that she might see Essie one last time. But when the screws were removed and the coffin lid opened, Essie sat up in her coffin and smiled at her sister. The three ministers fell backward into the grave, the shortest suffering three broken ribs as the other two trampled him in their desperate efforts to get out. The mourners, including Essie's sister, believed that she was a ghost, and fled yelling. When they saw that Essie, who had climbed up from the grave, was actually pursuing them, they stampeded into town in a state of complete hysteria. For many years, Essie Dunbar was viewed with suspicion in the neighborhood; there were rumors that she was a zombie who had returned from the dead. As far as we can identify, no first-hand, contemporaneously published accounts corroborate this tale. Instead, the primary evidence for its occurrence appears to be newspaper reports published decades later. As such, even Bondeson, the author of Buried Alive, qualifies the claim to a certain extent in his book by noting that 'In later life, [Dunbar] became a popular local personality, and it is by no means unlikely that the story of her resurrection from the tomb was somewhat improved upon as it was told and retold, and finally appeared in the newspapers after her second and final death in 1955.' In point of fact, Essie Dunbar actually died on 22 May 1962. The 1955 newspaper article Bondeson referenced (published in the Augusta Chronicle on 25 August 1955) was actually written on the occurrence of the death of the doctor who had supposedly incorrectly declared Dunbar dead in 1915, and its recounting of Dunbar's alleged mistaken burial was based on a second-hand account of the event told by a local physician who had 'treated a minister who was injured as a result of the bizarre incident': BLACKVILLE, S.C. - Essie Dunbar, 70, has outlived the doctor who pronounced her dead 40 years ago. The Blackville Negro was picking cotton today, very much alive, even though her funeral was preached and her coffin sealed nearly half a century ago, The strange saga of her 'death', known to most of this south-central Carolina town's older residents, was unfolded today to a Chronicle reporter by Dr. O.D. Hammond, a local physician who treated a minister who was injured as a result of the bizarre incident. This article has been reprinted verbatim in several newspapers at various times in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s, and it served as the primary source of an article about Essie Dunbar for the British magazine Fortean Times, which was ultimately cited in Bondeson's Buried Alive. Although anecdotal evidence for Essie Dunbar's accidental burial may exist, the details of the event have their origins in a second-hand report by a doctor who told a tale to a reporter 40 years after its alleged occurrence. As such, verifying the literal truthfulness of the tale as now presented over a century later is problematic.

nan

A 30-year-old woman was partially buried during a funeral service in 1915, only to be found alive inside the coffin by her grieving sister.

Neutral

One of humanity's most historically pervasive fears is either being buried alive or waking up six feet underground to find that you have been mistaken for dead. Though rare, such events have occurred from time to time, and they form the basis of an entire book by Jan Bondeson titled Buried Alive: The Terrifying History of Our Most Primal Fear. This book, published in 2001, is the primary source of online claims about a woman named Essie Dunbar who according to legend was pronounced dead following a seizure, was partially buried during her funeral service, and was then exhumed for the benefit of her grieving sister who had arrived late. When the coffin was opened, the story goes, Dunbar was found to be both alive and awake: In the summer of 1915, Dr. D. K. Briggs of Blackville, South Carolina, was called to attend the thirty-year-old black woman Essie Dunbar, who had suffered an attack of epilepsy. He found no signs of life and declared her dead. The corpse was put in a wooden coffin and the funeral arranged for eleven in the following morning, to give Essie's sister, who lived in a neighboring town, the chance to participate. Although the ceremony was a lengthy one, with three preachers taking turns to perform, the sister had still not arrived when Essie's coffin was lowered into its six-foot-deep grave. She appeared a few minutes later, however, and the ministers agreed to dig up the coffin so that she might see Essie one last time. But when the screws were removed and the coffin lid opened, Essie sat up in her coffin and smiled at her sister. The three ministers fell backward into the grave, the shortest suffering three broken ribs as the other two trampled him in their desperate efforts to get out. The mourners, including Essie's sister, believed that she was a ghost, and fled yelling. When they saw that Essie, who had climbed up from the grave, was actually pursuing them, they stampeded into town in a state of complete hysteria. For many years, Essie Dunbar was viewed with suspicion in the neighborhood; there were rumors that she was a zombie who had returned from the dead. As far as we can identify, no first-hand, contemporaneously published accounts corroborate this tale. Instead, the primary evidence for its occurrence appears to be newspaper reports published decades later. As such, even Bondeson, the author of Buried Alive, qualifies the claim to a certain extent in his book by noting that 'In later life, [Dunbar] became a popular local personality, and it is by no means unlikely that the story of her resurrection from the tomb was somewhat improved upon as it was told and retold, and finally appeared in the newspapers after her second and final death in 1955.' In point of fact, Essie Dunbar actually died on 22 May 1962. The 1955 newspaper article Bondeson referenced (published in the Augusta Chronicle on 25 August 1955) was actually written on the occurrence of the death of the doctor who had supposedly incorrectly declared Dunbar dead in 1915, and its recounting of Dunbar's alleged mistaken burial was based on a second-hand account of the event told by a local physician who had 'treated a minister who was injured as a result of the bizarre incident': BLACKVILLE, S.C. - Essie Dunbar, 70, has outlived the doctor who pronounced her dead 40 years ago. The Blackville Negro was picking cotton today, very much alive, even though her funeral was preached and her coffin sealed nearly half a century ago, The strange saga of her 'death', known to most of this south-central Carolina town's older residents, was unfolded today to a Chronicle reporter by Dr. O.D. Hammond, a local physician who treated a minister who was injured as a result of the bizarre incident. This article has been reprinted verbatim in several newspapers at various times in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s, and it served as the primary source of an article about Essie Dunbar for the British magazine Fortean Times, which was ultimately cited in Bondeson's Buried Alive. Although anecdotal evidence for Essie Dunbar's accidental burial may exist, the details of the event have their origins in a second-hand report by a doctor who told a tale to a reporter 40 years after its alleged occurrence. As such, verifying the literal truthfulness of the tale as now presented over a century later is problematic.

nan

A viral video shows bugs inside of a can of Chef Boyardee Mini Raviolis.

Neutral

On 5 January 2019, Facebook user Samantha Moore Booker published several photographs that supposedly showed bugs and larvae inside of a can of Chef Boyardee Mini Ravioli: Do NOT eat or feed your kid(s) Chef Boyardee mini ravioli!!!! I happened to open one ravioli when trying to separate them to cook for Finn's lunch and these are the BUGS and LARVAE we found inside the 'meat.' We got the four pack from Enterprise, AL Walmart last night. The expiration date is Oct 2020. 😳🤯🤢🤮 We'll call the company on Monday. 😡 Shortly afterward, she added a video that reportedly gave a better look at these 'bugs' in the mini raviolis. By the time we encountered this footage, it had been licensed out to 'Viral Hog': Chef Boyardee's Facebook page quickly filled up with comments from concerned customers. On 17 January 2019, they responded to a number of social media users on Facebook with a message similar to the following, asserting a possible issue with caramel-coloring pieces: We have seen the video/post that you are referencing and understand your concern. Please be assured that the dark color pieces in the ravioli are caramel coloring. During the cooking process, the caramel coloring may not thoroughly mix into the batch resulting in dark color pieces. We want you to know that we take food safety & quality very seriously and have shared these details with our Quality team. It's difficult to determine what these dark items really are by simply viewing this video. It should be noted, however, that Conagra Brands, the company that distributes Chef Boyardee products, has not issued a recall for these canned mini raviolis, as of this writing.

nan

A viral video shows bugs inside of a can of Chef Boyardee Mini Raviolis.

Neutral

On 5 January 2019, Facebook user Samantha Moore Booker published several photographs that supposedly showed bugs and larvae inside of a can of Chef Boyardee Mini Ravioli: Do NOT eat or feed your kid(s) Chef Boyardee mini ravioli!!!! I happened to open one ravioli when trying to separate them to cook for Finn's lunch and these are the BUGS and LARVAE we found inside the 'meat.' We got the four pack from Enterprise, AL Walmart last night. The expiration date is Oct 2020. 😳🤯🤢🤮 We'll call the company on Monday. 😡 Shortly afterward, she added a video that reportedly gave a better look at these 'bugs' in the mini raviolis. By the time we encountered this footage, it had been licensed out to 'Viral Hog': Chef Boyardee's Facebook page quickly filled up with comments from concerned customers. On 17 January 2019, they responded to a number of social media users on Facebook with a message similar to the following, asserting a possible issue with caramel-coloring pieces: We have seen the video/post that you are referencing and understand your concern. Please be assured that the dark color pieces in the ravioli are caramel coloring. During the cooking process, the caramel coloring may not thoroughly mix into the batch resulting in dark color pieces. We want you to know that we take food safety & quality very seriously and have shared these details with our Quality team. It's difficult to determine what these dark items really are by simply viewing this video. It should be noted, however, that Conagra Brands, the company that distributes Chef Boyardee products, has not issued a recall for these canned mini raviolis, as of this writing.

nan

A child died after suffering a severe rash and serious medical complications after the breastfeeding mother received her second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Neutral

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In late March 2021, claims of an infant dying after its breastfeeding mother received a second dose of an unspecified COVID-19 vaccine circulated on the internet, furthering a narrative that suggested vaccines may have understudied or unknown safety implications. The above post includes what appears to be a photograph of the torso of an infant covered in a hives-like rash that was said to have occurred after its nursing parent received the 'covid vaccine,' yet omits the name of the original poster and the group in which the message was posted. A Facebook user who goes by the name Caitlyn RN, and whose timeline revealed a number of posts that expressed opposition to vaccinations, commented on the post with the below story: Lyndsi received her second dose last Wednesday. Thursday her breastfed baby was covered in a head to toe rash. By that night he was inconsolable and declining so they went to the ER. Baby was diagnosed witht thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and elevated liver enzymes. He was hospitalized and began various treatments but continued to decline. He passed away last night. In mid-March, some websites and a number of social media users also posted the story in a chain-letter-style Facebook post with information copied and pasted rather than shared from the original post. Furthermore, the content of the post was vague and in no instance gave the last name of 'Lyndsi,' her location, or any other identifying characteristics. In most instances, users did not cite an original source but simply credited the story to an unnamed friend. Our investigation determined that the photo in question likely depicts an authentic rash on a child, but we cannot say with certainty what type of rash it was or what might have caused it. Nor did the original poster include any identifying information that would allow our team to track a death certificate or any other information about the child or its condition. Thus, we rate this claim as 'Unproven.' Identifying the rash featured in the photograph is difficult, especially considering that rash-inducing viral infections are not uncommon in children and can be caused by a number of viruses, including chickenpox, measles, rubella, mononucleosis, and certain types of herpes infection. Though it is true that such rashes could result in elevated liver enzymes or a rare blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the above conditions may be caused by vaccine fluid emitted via breastmilk. To understand why such an occurrence is extremely unlikely, we must first understand how vaccines impact the human body. As of this writing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA for use in individuals age 16 years and older as a two-dose regimen given three weeks apart; the Moderna vaccine for use in those age 18 and older as a two-dose regimen given one month apart; and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for use in individuals age 18 and older as a single dose regimen. 'These conversations are challenging because the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine trial excluded lactating individuals. As a result, there are no clinical data regarding the safety of this vaccine in nursing mothers,' wrote the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine in a statement. 'However, there is little biological plausibility that the vaccine will cause harm, and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in milk may protect the breastfeeding child.' This is largely due to the way in which a vaccine is produced and how it enters the body. Vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are made of lipid nanoparticles that contain mRNA from the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. These particles are injected into the muscle, taken up by the muscle cells, and then transcribe to produce spike protein. It is this protein that stimulates an immune response and protects the individual against the virus. First and foremost, it is unlikely that a vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach the breast tissue. Even if it did, it is less likely that either an intact nanoparticle or mRNA would be transferred into the breastmilk. And in the extremely unlikely event that mRNA was present in milk, it would be digested by the child - not entered into their bloodstream - and is unlikely to impose any biological side effects. In fact, experts note that there could be an even bigger reward lurking in the breastmilk of vaccinated mothers. That's because the antibodies and T-cells stimulated by the vaccine in the breastfeeding parent may transfer through breastmilk, in theory protecting the child from infection. What the FDA Says Snopes spoke with an FDA spokesperson who said that the agency takes all reports of adverse events related to vaccines seriously. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA works closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the surveillance of vaccines being administered under an EUA in order to identify and address potential safety concerns. In addition, the FDA and CDC have a wide array of systems in place to monitor the safety of vaccines. One such program is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive reporting system overseen by the CDC that receives unverified reports of adverse events following immunization with both licensed (approved) vaccines and the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines. A search through the VAERS online database CDC Wonder for available data through March 19 did not reveal any record of an infant who had died as a result of their mother receiving the vaccination. 'Any reports of death following the administration of vaccines are promptly and rigorously investigated jointly by FDA and CDC. Such an investigation includes working with health care providers to obtain medical histories and clinical follow-up information,' noted the spokesperson. 'It is important to note that adverse events reported to VAERS following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between receipt of the vaccine and the event.' However, it is important to note that there is a lag time between reports to VAERS and when the reports are available online, and a subsequent look at the data revealed there was a corresponding case On April 23, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson shared a screenshot of a corresponding case that described a five-month-old infant who died of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, a serious but rare blood clotting disorder. Berenson described the recording as an 'authentic and highly detailed report.' VAERS reports a breastfeeding five-month old infant has died of TTP - a rare clotting disorder linked to, yes, low platelets. He became ill one day after his mother received her second @pfizer shot. This is an authentic and highly detailed report. pic.twitter.com/oNeWeFyYdp - Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) April 23, 2021 Our own search of case number 1166062-1 revealed that there was such a case filed in the VAERS system: The report was filed on April 4 - four days after our initial reporting of this event. It described a five-month-old male infant who had a recorded vaccination date of March 17 with an onset of symptoms the following day. A description of the adverse event read: Patient received second dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2020 while at work. March 18, 202 her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat, and developed a fever. Patient brought baby to local ER where assessments were performed, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes. Infant was hospitalized but continued to decline and passed away. Diagnosis of TTP. No known allergies. No new exposures aside from the mother's vaccination the previous day. First and foremost, the above description listed a vaccine receipt date of 2020, not 2021. And as some Twitter users pointed out, while healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS, anyone can file a VAERS report. Just because a case is listed in the system does not mean that it is authentic or has been validated by medical professionals. (It is also important to note that knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.) 'VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients,' read the CDC website. 'The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) accepts all reports, including reports of vaccination errors.' Furthermore, the claim alleges that the mother was vaccinated, but the case report suggests that the infant had been vaccinated. Breastfeeding recommendations established by the CDC further rote that with the exception of smallpox and yellow fever vaccines, neither inactivated nor live-virus vaccines administered to a lactating woman affect the safety of breastfeeding for women or their infants. Guidelines set forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that COVID-19 vaccines be offered to both pregnant and lactating individuals. According to the EUA factsheets provided to healthcare professionals for Pfizer-BioNtech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines, available data on COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy because they have not been tested in pregnant women, limited data for use in pregnancy and clinical trials are ongoing, and pregnant or breastfeeding individuals should discuss options with their provider. 'ACOG recommends COVID-19 vaccines be offered to lactating individuals. While lactating individuals were not included in most clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from lactating individuals who otherwise meet criteria for vaccination. Theoretical concerns regarding the safety of vaccinating lactating individuals do not outweigh the potential benefits of receiving the vaccine. There is no need to avoid initiation or discontinue breastfeeding in patients who receive a COVID-19 vaccine,' wrote the organization in a March 24 statement. While more data is needed to test the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant and lactating individuals, healthcare experts largely agree that the protection of serious disease provided by the vaccine outweighs any perceived risk that it may impose.Recent Updates [May 7, 2021]: This article was updated to include case number 1166062-1 filed in the VAERS reporting system.

nan

A child died after suffering a severe rash and serious medical complications after the breastfeeding mother received her second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Neutral

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In late March 2021, claims of an infant dying after its breastfeeding mother received a second dose of an unspecified COVID-19 vaccine circulated on the internet, furthering a narrative that suggested vaccines may have understudied or unknown safety implications. The above post includes what appears to be a photograph of the torso of an infant covered in a hives-like rash that was said to have occurred after its nursing parent received the 'covid vaccine,' yet omits the name of the original poster and the group in which the message was posted. A Facebook user who goes by the name Caitlyn RN, and whose timeline revealed a number of posts that expressed opposition to vaccinations, commented on the post with the below story: Lyndsi received her second dose last Wednesday. Thursday her breastfed baby was covered in a head to toe rash. By that night he was inconsolable and declining so they went to the ER. Baby was diagnosed witht thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and elevated liver enzymes. He was hospitalized and began various treatments but continued to decline. He passed away last night. In mid-March, some websites and a number of social media users also posted the story in a chain-letter-style Facebook post with information copied and pasted rather than shared from the original post. Furthermore, the content of the post was vague and in no instance gave the last name of 'Lyndsi,' her location, or any other identifying characteristics. In most instances, users did not cite an original source but simply credited the story to an unnamed friend. Our investigation determined that the photo in question likely depicts an authentic rash on a child, but we cannot say with certainty what type of rash it was or what might have caused it. Nor did the original poster include any identifying information that would allow our team to track a death certificate or any other information about the child or its condition. Thus, we rate this claim as 'Unproven.' Identifying the rash featured in the photograph is difficult, especially considering that rash-inducing viral infections are not uncommon in children and can be caused by a number of viruses, including chickenpox, measles, rubella, mononucleosis, and certain types of herpes infection. Though it is true that such rashes could result in elevated liver enzymes or a rare blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the above conditions may be caused by vaccine fluid emitted via breastmilk. To understand why such an occurrence is extremely unlikely, we must first understand how vaccines impact the human body. As of this writing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA for use in individuals age 16 years and older as a two-dose regimen given three weeks apart; the Moderna vaccine for use in those age 18 and older as a two-dose regimen given one month apart; and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for use in individuals age 18 and older as a single dose regimen. 'These conversations are challenging because the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine trial excluded lactating individuals. As a result, there are no clinical data regarding the safety of this vaccine in nursing mothers,' wrote the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine in a statement. 'However, there is little biological plausibility that the vaccine will cause harm, and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in milk may protect the breastfeeding child.' This is largely due to the way in which a vaccine is produced and how it enters the body. Vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are made of lipid nanoparticles that contain mRNA from the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. These particles are injected into the muscle, taken up by the muscle cells, and then transcribe to produce spike protein. It is this protein that stimulates an immune response and protects the individual against the virus. First and foremost, it is unlikely that a vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach the breast tissue. Even if it did, it is less likely that either an intact nanoparticle or mRNA would be transferred into the breastmilk. And in the extremely unlikely event that mRNA was present in milk, it would be digested by the child - not entered into their bloodstream - and is unlikely to impose any biological side effects. In fact, experts note that there could be an even bigger reward lurking in the breastmilk of vaccinated mothers. That's because the antibodies and T-cells stimulated by the vaccine in the breastfeeding parent may transfer through breastmilk, in theory protecting the child from infection. What the FDA Says Snopes spoke with an FDA spokesperson who said that the agency takes all reports of adverse events related to vaccines seriously. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA works closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the surveillance of vaccines being administered under an EUA in order to identify and address potential safety concerns. In addition, the FDA and CDC have a wide array of systems in place to monitor the safety of vaccines. One such program is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive reporting system overseen by the CDC that receives unverified reports of adverse events following immunization with both licensed (approved) vaccines and the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines. A search through the VAERS online database CDC Wonder for available data through March 19 did not reveal any record of an infant who had died as a result of their mother receiving the vaccination. 'Any reports of death following the administration of vaccines are promptly and rigorously investigated jointly by FDA and CDC. Such an investigation includes working with health care providers to obtain medical histories and clinical follow-up information,' noted the spokesperson. 'It is important to note that adverse events reported to VAERS following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between receipt of the vaccine and the event.' However, it is important to note that there is a lag time between reports to VAERS and when the reports are available online, and a subsequent look at the data revealed there was a corresponding case On April 23, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson shared a screenshot of a corresponding case that described a five-month-old infant who died of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, a serious but rare blood clotting disorder. Berenson described the recording as an 'authentic and highly detailed report.' VAERS reports a breastfeeding five-month old infant has died of TTP - a rare clotting disorder linked to, yes, low platelets. He became ill one day after his mother received her second @pfizer shot. This is an authentic and highly detailed report. pic.twitter.com/oNeWeFyYdp - Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) April 23, 2021 Our own search of case number 1166062-1 revealed that there was such a case filed in the VAERS system: The report was filed on April 4 - four days after our initial reporting of this event. It described a five-month-old male infant who had a recorded vaccination date of March 17 with an onset of symptoms the following day. A description of the adverse event read: Patient received second dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2020 while at work. March 18, 202 her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat, and developed a fever. Patient brought baby to local ER where assessments were performed, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes. Infant was hospitalized but continued to decline and passed away. Diagnosis of TTP. No known allergies. No new exposures aside from the mother's vaccination the previous day. First and foremost, the above description listed a vaccine receipt date of 2020, not 2021. And as some Twitter users pointed out, while healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS, anyone can file a VAERS report. Just because a case is listed in the system does not mean that it is authentic or has been validated by medical professionals. (It is also important to note that knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.) 'VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients,' read the CDC website. 'The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) accepts all reports, including reports of vaccination errors.' Furthermore, the claim alleges that the mother was vaccinated, but the case report suggests that the infant had been vaccinated. Breastfeeding recommendations established by the CDC further rote that with the exception of smallpox and yellow fever vaccines, neither inactivated nor live-virus vaccines administered to a lactating woman affect the safety of breastfeeding for women or their infants. Guidelines set forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that COVID-19 vaccines be offered to both pregnant and lactating individuals. According to the EUA factsheets provided to healthcare professionals for Pfizer-BioNtech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines, available data on COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy because they have not been tested in pregnant women, limited data for use in pregnancy and clinical trials are ongoing, and pregnant or breastfeeding individuals should discuss options with their provider. 'ACOG recommends COVID-19 vaccines be offered to lactating individuals. While lactating individuals were not included in most clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from lactating individuals who otherwise meet criteria for vaccination. Theoretical concerns regarding the safety of vaccinating lactating individuals do not outweigh the potential benefits of receiving the vaccine. There is no need to avoid initiation or discontinue breastfeeding in patients who receive a COVID-19 vaccine,' wrote the organization in a March 24 statement. While more data is needed to test the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant and lactating individuals, healthcare experts largely agree that the protection of serious disease provided by the vaccine outweighs any perceived risk that it may impose.Recent Updates [May 7, 2021]: This article was updated to include case number 1166062-1 filed in the VAERS reporting system.

nan

A child died after suffering a severe rash and serious medical complications after the breastfeeding mother received her second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Neutral

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In late March 2021, claims of an infant dying after its breastfeeding mother received a second dose of an unspecified COVID-19 vaccine circulated on the internet, furthering a narrative that suggested vaccines may have understudied or unknown safety implications. The above post includes what appears to be a photograph of the torso of an infant covered in a hives-like rash that was said to have occurred after its nursing parent received the 'covid vaccine,' yet omits the name of the original poster and the group in which the message was posted. A Facebook user who goes by the name Caitlyn RN, and whose timeline revealed a number of posts that expressed opposition to vaccinations, commented on the post with the below story: Lyndsi received her second dose last Wednesday. Thursday her breastfed baby was covered in a head to toe rash. By that night he was inconsolable and declining so they went to the ER. Baby was diagnosed witht thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and elevated liver enzymes. He was hospitalized and began various treatments but continued to decline. He passed away last night. In mid-March, some websites and a number of social media users also posted the story in a chain-letter-style Facebook post with information copied and pasted rather than shared from the original post. Furthermore, the content of the post was vague and in no instance gave the last name of 'Lyndsi,' her location, or any other identifying characteristics. In most instances, users did not cite an original source but simply credited the story to an unnamed friend. Our investigation determined that the photo in question likely depicts an authentic rash on a child, but we cannot say with certainty what type of rash it was or what might have caused it. Nor did the original poster include any identifying information that would allow our team to track a death certificate or any other information about the child or its condition. Thus, we rate this claim as 'Unproven.' Identifying the rash featured in the photograph is difficult, especially considering that rash-inducing viral infections are not uncommon in children and can be caused by a number of viruses, including chickenpox, measles, rubella, mononucleosis, and certain types of herpes infection. Though it is true that such rashes could result in elevated liver enzymes or a rare blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the above conditions may be caused by vaccine fluid emitted via breastmilk. To understand why such an occurrence is extremely unlikely, we must first understand how vaccines impact the human body. As of this writing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA for use in individuals age 16 years and older as a two-dose regimen given three weeks apart; the Moderna vaccine for use in those age 18 and older as a two-dose regimen given one month apart; and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for use in individuals age 18 and older as a single dose regimen. 'These conversations are challenging because the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine trial excluded lactating individuals. As a result, there are no clinical data regarding the safety of this vaccine in nursing mothers,' wrote the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine in a statement. 'However, there is little biological plausibility that the vaccine will cause harm, and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in milk may protect the breastfeeding child.' This is largely due to the way in which a vaccine is produced and how it enters the body. Vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are made of lipid nanoparticles that contain mRNA from the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. These particles are injected into the muscle, taken up by the muscle cells, and then transcribe to produce spike protein. It is this protein that stimulates an immune response and protects the individual against the virus. First and foremost, it is unlikely that a vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach the breast tissue. Even if it did, it is less likely that either an intact nanoparticle or mRNA would be transferred into the breastmilk. And in the extremely unlikely event that mRNA was present in milk, it would be digested by the child - not entered into their bloodstream - and is unlikely to impose any biological side effects. In fact, experts note that there could be an even bigger reward lurking in the breastmilk of vaccinated mothers. That's because the antibodies and T-cells stimulated by the vaccine in the breastfeeding parent may transfer through breastmilk, in theory protecting the child from infection. What the FDA Says Snopes spoke with an FDA spokesperson who said that the agency takes all reports of adverse events related to vaccines seriously. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA works closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the surveillance of vaccines being administered under an EUA in order to identify and address potential safety concerns. In addition, the FDA and CDC have a wide array of systems in place to monitor the safety of vaccines. One such program is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive reporting system overseen by the CDC that receives unverified reports of adverse events following immunization with both licensed (approved) vaccines and the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines. A search through the VAERS online database CDC Wonder for available data through March 19 did not reveal any record of an infant who had died as a result of their mother receiving the vaccination. 'Any reports of death following the administration of vaccines are promptly and rigorously investigated jointly by FDA and CDC. Such an investigation includes working with health care providers to obtain medical histories and clinical follow-up information,' noted the spokesperson. 'It is important to note that adverse events reported to VAERS following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between receipt of the vaccine and the event.' However, it is important to note that there is a lag time between reports to VAERS and when the reports are available online, and a subsequent look at the data revealed there was a corresponding case On April 23, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson shared a screenshot of a corresponding case that described a five-month-old infant who died of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, a serious but rare blood clotting disorder. Berenson described the recording as an 'authentic and highly detailed report.' VAERS reports a breastfeeding five-month old infant has died of TTP - a rare clotting disorder linked to, yes, low platelets. He became ill one day after his mother received her second @pfizer shot. This is an authentic and highly detailed report. pic.twitter.com/oNeWeFyYdp - Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) April 23, 2021 Our own search of case number 1166062-1 revealed that there was such a case filed in the VAERS system: The report was filed on April 4 - four days after our initial reporting of this event. It described a five-month-old male infant who had a recorded vaccination date of March 17 with an onset of symptoms the following day. A description of the adverse event read: Patient received second dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2020 while at work. March 18, 202 her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat, and developed a fever. Patient brought baby to local ER where assessments were performed, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes. Infant was hospitalized but continued to decline and passed away. Diagnosis of TTP. No known allergies. No new exposures aside from the mother's vaccination the previous day. First and foremost, the above description listed a vaccine receipt date of 2020, not 2021. And as some Twitter users pointed out, while healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS, anyone can file a VAERS report. Just because a case is listed in the system does not mean that it is authentic or has been validated by medical professionals. (It is also important to note that knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.) 'VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients,' read the CDC website. 'The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) accepts all reports, including reports of vaccination errors.' Furthermore, the claim alleges that the mother was vaccinated, but the case report suggests that the infant had been vaccinated. Breastfeeding recommendations established by the CDC further rote that with the exception of smallpox and yellow fever vaccines, neither inactivated nor live-virus vaccines administered to a lactating woman affect the safety of breastfeeding for women or their infants. Guidelines set forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that COVID-19 vaccines be offered to both pregnant and lactating individuals. According to the EUA factsheets provided to healthcare professionals for Pfizer-BioNtech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines, available data on COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy because they have not been tested in pregnant women, limited data for use in pregnancy and clinical trials are ongoing, and pregnant or breastfeeding individuals should discuss options with their provider. 'ACOG recommends COVID-19 vaccines be offered to lactating individuals. While lactating individuals were not included in most clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from lactating individuals who otherwise meet criteria for vaccination. Theoretical concerns regarding the safety of vaccinating lactating individuals do not outweigh the potential benefits of receiving the vaccine. There is no need to avoid initiation or discontinue breastfeeding in patients who receive a COVID-19 vaccine,' wrote the organization in a March 24 statement. While more data is needed to test the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant and lactating individuals, healthcare experts largely agree that the protection of serious disease provided by the vaccine outweighs any perceived risk that it may impose.Recent Updates [May 7, 2021]: This article was updated to include case number 1166062-1 filed in the VAERS reporting system.

nan

One of Vice President Mike Pence's older brothers, Ed Pence, is an executive at Cummins Inc., a company that manufactures engines for the Russian military and has also used lobbying firms connected with Paul Manafort, indicating that Mike Pence may have compromising ties to Russia.

Neutral

Unlike some other members of the Trump administration and 2016 campaign staff, Vice President Mike Pence has remained relatively unscathed by accusations of inappropriate Russian contacts. However, an Internet rumor linking one of his brothers to a company that does business in Russia alleges that Pence, too, has questionable Russian ties. We first encountered the rumor in late 2017, when several readers e-mailed us queries posing questions such as: 'Does Mike Pence's brother make engines for the Russian military? And did said company hire Paul Manafort's consulting firm? Thus, is there any merit to the claim that Paul Manafort helped pick Mike Pence as a running mate and it would profit them (Pence family) greatly if Russian sanctions were lifted?' The timing of the queries coincided with an eruption of social media posts raising precisely the same issues: Pence's Brother sells engines to Russia. Manafort introduced trump/Pence & told trump to choose Pence for VP. Another trump man w/Russia connections! #TrumpPenceRussia#RESIST - Sherry (@SherryGramjams) November 11, 2017 Don't forget Pence's brôther makes engines for the Russian military....#NoJoke 👉https://t.co/irGIU9DroS pic.twitter.com/iEortnX46S - 🇵🇷🇺🇸Alexander Hamilton🚨: #WagTheDog (@AHamiltonSpirit) October 9, 2017 Many such posts linked to a 21 June 2017 article on the Mining Awareness blog that explored the relationships between Mike Pence, Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturing company which is headquartered in Pence's hometown of Columbus, Indiana, and at which his brother, Ed Pence, served as a top executive for years), and Russia. Cummins has participated in joint ventures with Russian companies going back to the early 1990s. In 2006, for example, Cummins signed an agreement with KAMAZ, a truck manufacturer in which the Russian government is a major stakeholder, to form the joint venture Cummins-Kama. And Cummins did, for a period of time, make engines for use in Russian tanks (specifically the 'Tigr' armored vehicle). According to the Russian-language news web site Lenta.ru, it ceased doing so in 2016, however, when the tank's main manufacturer decided to use Russian-made engines instead. The article noted that Cummins's Russian business interests could render the company's bottom line vulnerable to U.S. sanctions and thus, by virtue of his family and hometown connections to Cummins, predispose Mike Pence to show favoritism toward Russia. It went on to suggest that this was the 'probable reason' that Pence, who headed Trump's transition team in 2016, ignored credible warnings about Michael Flynn's conflicts of interest vis-a-vis Russia and hired him as national security adviser anyway (and eventually Flynn resigned after it was made public that he had misled Pence about his contacts with Russia): VP Pence's brother Ed appears deeply dependent upon Russia for some time - from 2005 as VP and General Manager of the Heavy Duty Engine Business of Cummins and starting in Feb 1, 2013 as VP and General Manager of the High Horsepower Engine Business of Cummins. Pence became Governor of Indiana in Jan. 2013. Cummins VP Pence appears the probable reason that U.S. VP Pence ignored Congressman Cummings warnings about Flynn and Russia. It provides motive. Besides being purely speculative, the article failed to establish any deep Pence-Russia connection, however. It was so fixated on Russia, in fact, that it completely overlooked the bigger picture comprising Cummins's vast and varied international business dealings. As of 2015, according to Fortune, the company was operating in no fewer than 90 countries worldwide. During Ed Pence's tenure as a Cummins executive, it launched joint ventures not just in Russia, but also in India, China, Japan, South Korea, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, and elsewhere. If there is a compelling reason to suppose that Pence's fortunes were more 'deeply dependent' on Russia than any of those other countries, it went unstated. We should also note that as of December 2017, Ed Pence no longer works at Cummins Inc. His departure was announced in a 7 December press release congratulating Pence on his retirement after having been with the company for 36 years. For most of that time he worked in the purchasing and sales departments. The supposed link between Ed Pence and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is equally tenuous. As a number of sources have pointed out, Cummins Inc. has long used lobbying firms with which Manafort was distantly associated - beginning in 1999 with BKSH & Associates (formerly known as BMSK, or Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly) and continuing from 2009 to the present with Prime Policy Group (a spin-off of BKSH & Associates) - but Manafort was neither a partner in, nor employed by, those firms during that period of time. And although at least one of his former partners (Charles Black) has been identified by name as a lobbyist for Cummins over the years, Paul Manafort himself has not. According to mainstream news coverage, Paul Manafort did play a role, during his brief tenure as Trump's campaign manager, in convincing the candidate to select Mike Pence as his running mate. CBS News reported this version of events: First reported by the New York Post, an indecisive Trump had initially decided on Christie after the New Jersey governor made his final case to Trump on July 12. Christie, the first former presidential candidate to get behind Trump after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, had assumed a high profile role on the campaign prior to the Convention - reaching out to donors and potential high profile supporters. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager at the time, allegedly had another idea in mind. Manafort had arranged for Trump to meet with his first choice for the job on July 13: Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Afterwards, the plans was for Trump and Pence to then fly back to New York together and a formal announcement would be made, a campaign source said of Manafort's thinking. What had previously been reported as a 'lucky break' by the New York Times was actually a swift political maneuver devised by the now fired campaign manager. Set on changing Trump's mind, he concocted a story that Trump's plane had mechanical problems, forcing the soon-to-be Republican nominee to stay the night in Indianapolis for breakfast with the Pence family. Swayed by Pence's aggressive pitch, Trump agreed to ditch Christie and make Pence his VP the following day, according to a source. On the face of it, though, there seems little reason to suppose that Manafort's boosterism and Trump's ultimate decision to choose Pence as his running mate had much, if anything, to do with Russia. As the New York Times put it, choosing Pence - a D.C. insider 'with unimpeachable conservative credentials, warm relationships in Washington and a vast reservoir of good will with the Christian right' - was more 'a concession to standard political imperatives' for a candidate who ran as the quintessential outsider. If Vice President Pence had any deep, compromising ties with Russia, they have yet to be proved real.

nan

One of Vice President Mike Pence's older brothers, Ed Pence, is an executive at Cummins Inc., a company that manufactures engines for the Russian military and has also used lobbying firms connected with Paul Manafort, indicating that Mike Pence may have compromising ties to Russia.

Neutral

Unlike some other members of the Trump administration and 2016 campaign staff, Vice President Mike Pence has remained relatively unscathed by accusations of inappropriate Russian contacts. However, an Internet rumor linking one of his brothers to a company that does business in Russia alleges that Pence, too, has questionable Russian ties. We first encountered the rumor in late 2017, when several readers e-mailed us queries posing questions such as: 'Does Mike Pence's brother make engines for the Russian military? And did said company hire Paul Manafort's consulting firm? Thus, is there any merit to the claim that Paul Manafort helped pick Mike Pence as a running mate and it would profit them (Pence family) greatly if Russian sanctions were lifted?' The timing of the queries coincided with an eruption of social media posts raising precisely the same issues: Pence's Brother sells engines to Russia. Manafort introduced trump/Pence & told trump to choose Pence for VP. Another trump man w/Russia connections! #TrumpPenceRussia#RESIST - Sherry (@SherryGramjams) November 11, 2017 Don't forget Pence's brôther makes engines for the Russian military....#NoJoke 👉https://t.co/irGIU9DroS pic.twitter.com/iEortnX46S - 🇵🇷🇺🇸Alexander Hamilton🚨: #WagTheDog (@AHamiltonSpirit) October 9, 2017 Many such posts linked to a 21 June 2017 article on the Mining Awareness blog that explored the relationships between Mike Pence, Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturing company which is headquartered in Pence's hometown of Columbus, Indiana, and at which his brother, Ed Pence, served as a top executive for years), and Russia. Cummins has participated in joint ventures with Russian companies going back to the early 1990s. In 2006, for example, Cummins signed an agreement with KAMAZ, a truck manufacturer in which the Russian government is a major stakeholder, to form the joint venture Cummins-Kama. And Cummins did, for a period of time, make engines for use in Russian tanks (specifically the 'Tigr' armored vehicle). According to the Russian-language news web site Lenta.ru, it ceased doing so in 2016, however, when the tank's main manufacturer decided to use Russian-made engines instead. The article noted that Cummins's Russian business interests could render the company's bottom line vulnerable to U.S. sanctions and thus, by virtue of his family and hometown connections to Cummins, predispose Mike Pence to show favoritism toward Russia. It went on to suggest that this was the 'probable reason' that Pence, who headed Trump's transition team in 2016, ignored credible warnings about Michael Flynn's conflicts of interest vis-a-vis Russia and hired him as national security adviser anyway (and eventually Flynn resigned after it was made public that he had misled Pence about his contacts with Russia): VP Pence's brother Ed appears deeply dependent upon Russia for some time - from 2005 as VP and General Manager of the Heavy Duty Engine Business of Cummins and starting in Feb 1, 2013 as VP and General Manager of the High Horsepower Engine Business of Cummins. Pence became Governor of Indiana in Jan. 2013. Cummins VP Pence appears the probable reason that U.S. VP Pence ignored Congressman Cummings warnings about Flynn and Russia. It provides motive. Besides being purely speculative, the article failed to establish any deep Pence-Russia connection, however. It was so fixated on Russia, in fact, that it completely overlooked the bigger picture comprising Cummins's vast and varied international business dealings. As of 2015, according to Fortune, the company was operating in no fewer than 90 countries worldwide. During Ed Pence's tenure as a Cummins executive, it launched joint ventures not just in Russia, but also in India, China, Japan, South Korea, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, and elsewhere. If there is a compelling reason to suppose that Pence's fortunes were more 'deeply dependent' on Russia than any of those other countries, it went unstated. We should also note that as of December 2017, Ed Pence no longer works at Cummins Inc. His departure was announced in a 7 December press release congratulating Pence on his retirement after having been with the company for 36 years. For most of that time he worked in the purchasing and sales departments. The supposed link between Ed Pence and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is equally tenuous. As a number of sources have pointed out, Cummins Inc. has long used lobbying firms with which Manafort was distantly associated - beginning in 1999 with BKSH & Associates (formerly known as BMSK, or Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly) and continuing from 2009 to the present with Prime Policy Group (a spin-off of BKSH & Associates) - but Manafort was neither a partner in, nor employed by, those firms during that period of time. And although at least one of his former partners (Charles Black) has been identified by name as a lobbyist for Cummins over the years, Paul Manafort himself has not. According to mainstream news coverage, Paul Manafort did play a role, during his brief tenure as Trump's campaign manager, in convincing the candidate to select Mike Pence as his running mate. CBS News reported this version of events: First reported by the New York Post, an indecisive Trump had initially decided on Christie after the New Jersey governor made his final case to Trump on July 12. Christie, the first former presidential candidate to get behind Trump after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, had assumed a high profile role on the campaign prior to the Convention - reaching out to donors and potential high profile supporters. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager at the time, allegedly had another idea in mind. Manafort had arranged for Trump to meet with his first choice for the job on July 13: Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Afterwards, the plans was for Trump and Pence to then fly back to New York together and a formal announcement would be made, a campaign source said of Manafort's thinking. What had previously been reported as a 'lucky break' by the New York Times was actually a swift political maneuver devised by the now fired campaign manager. Set on changing Trump's mind, he concocted a story that Trump's plane had mechanical problems, forcing the soon-to-be Republican nominee to stay the night in Indianapolis for breakfast with the Pence family. Swayed by Pence's aggressive pitch, Trump agreed to ditch Christie and make Pence his VP the following day, according to a source. On the face of it, though, there seems little reason to suppose that Manafort's boosterism and Trump's ultimate decision to choose Pence as his running mate had much, if anything, to do with Russia. As the New York Times put it, choosing Pence - a D.C. insider 'with unimpeachable conservative credentials, warm relationships in Washington and a vast reservoir of good will with the Christian right' - was more 'a concession to standard political imperatives' for a candidate who ran as the quintessential outsider. If Vice President Pence had any deep, compromising ties with Russia, they have yet to be proved real.

nan

One of Vice President Mike Pence's older brothers, Ed Pence, is an executive at Cummins Inc., a company that manufactures engines for the Russian military and has also used lobbying firms connected with Paul Manafort, indicating that Mike Pence may have compromising ties to Russia.

Neutral

Unlike some other members of the Trump administration and 2016 campaign staff, Vice President Mike Pence has remained relatively unscathed by accusations of inappropriate Russian contacts. However, an Internet rumor linking one of his brothers to a company that does business in Russia alleges that Pence, too, has questionable Russian ties. We first encountered the rumor in late 2017, when several readers e-mailed us queries posing questions such as: 'Does Mike Pence's brother make engines for the Russian military? And did said company hire Paul Manafort's consulting firm? Thus, is there any merit to the claim that Paul Manafort helped pick Mike Pence as a running mate and it would profit them (Pence family) greatly if Russian sanctions were lifted?' The timing of the queries coincided with an eruption of social media posts raising precisely the same issues: Pence's Brother sells engines to Russia. Manafort introduced trump/Pence & told trump to choose Pence for VP. Another trump man w/Russia connections! #TrumpPenceRussia#RESIST - Sherry (@SherryGramjams) November 11, 2017 Don't forget Pence's brôther makes engines for the Russian military....#NoJoke 👉https://t.co/irGIU9DroS pic.twitter.com/iEortnX46S - 🇵🇷🇺🇸Alexander Hamilton🚨: #WagTheDog (@AHamiltonSpirit) October 9, 2017 Many such posts linked to a 21 June 2017 article on the Mining Awareness blog that explored the relationships between Mike Pence, Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturing company which is headquartered in Pence's hometown of Columbus, Indiana, and at which his brother, Ed Pence, served as a top executive for years), and Russia. Cummins has participated in joint ventures with Russian companies going back to the early 1990s. In 2006, for example, Cummins signed an agreement with KAMAZ, a truck manufacturer in which the Russian government is a major stakeholder, to form the joint venture Cummins-Kama. And Cummins did, for a period of time, make engines for use in Russian tanks (specifically the 'Tigr' armored vehicle). According to the Russian-language news web site Lenta.ru, it ceased doing so in 2016, however, when the tank's main manufacturer decided to use Russian-made engines instead. The article noted that Cummins's Russian business interests could render the company's bottom line vulnerable to U.S. sanctions and thus, by virtue of his family and hometown connections to Cummins, predispose Mike Pence to show favoritism toward Russia. It went on to suggest that this was the 'probable reason' that Pence, who headed Trump's transition team in 2016, ignored credible warnings about Michael Flynn's conflicts of interest vis-a-vis Russia and hired him as national security adviser anyway (and eventually Flynn resigned after it was made public that he had misled Pence about his contacts with Russia): VP Pence's brother Ed appears deeply dependent upon Russia for some time - from 2005 as VP and General Manager of the Heavy Duty Engine Business of Cummins and starting in Feb 1, 2013 as VP and General Manager of the High Horsepower Engine Business of Cummins. Pence became Governor of Indiana in Jan. 2013. Cummins VP Pence appears the probable reason that U.S. VP Pence ignored Congressman Cummings warnings about Flynn and Russia. It provides motive. Besides being purely speculative, the article failed to establish any deep Pence-Russia connection, however. It was so fixated on Russia, in fact, that it completely overlooked the bigger picture comprising Cummins's vast and varied international business dealings. As of 2015, according to Fortune, the company was operating in no fewer than 90 countries worldwide. During Ed Pence's tenure as a Cummins executive, it launched joint ventures not just in Russia, but also in India, China, Japan, South Korea, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, and elsewhere. If there is a compelling reason to suppose that Pence's fortunes were more 'deeply dependent' on Russia than any of those other countries, it went unstated. We should also note that as of December 2017, Ed Pence no longer works at Cummins Inc. His departure was announced in a 7 December press release congratulating Pence on his retirement after having been with the company for 36 years. For most of that time he worked in the purchasing and sales departments. The supposed link between Ed Pence and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is equally tenuous. As a number of sources have pointed out, Cummins Inc. has long used lobbying firms with which Manafort was distantly associated - beginning in 1999 with BKSH & Associates (formerly known as BMSK, or Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly) and continuing from 2009 to the present with Prime Policy Group (a spin-off of BKSH & Associates) - but Manafort was neither a partner in, nor employed by, those firms during that period of time. And although at least one of his former partners (Charles Black) has been identified by name as a lobbyist for Cummins over the years, Paul Manafort himself has not. According to mainstream news coverage, Paul Manafort did play a role, during his brief tenure as Trump's campaign manager, in convincing the candidate to select Mike Pence as his running mate. CBS News reported this version of events: First reported by the New York Post, an indecisive Trump had initially decided on Christie after the New Jersey governor made his final case to Trump on July 12. Christie, the first former presidential candidate to get behind Trump after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, had assumed a high profile role on the campaign prior to the Convention - reaching out to donors and potential high profile supporters. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager at the time, allegedly had another idea in mind. Manafort had arranged for Trump to meet with his first choice for the job on July 13: Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Afterwards, the plans was for Trump and Pence to then fly back to New York together and a formal announcement would be made, a campaign source said of Manafort's thinking. What had previously been reported as a 'lucky break' by the New York Times was actually a swift political maneuver devised by the now fired campaign manager. Set on changing Trump's mind, he concocted a story that Trump's plane had mechanical problems, forcing the soon-to-be Republican nominee to stay the night in Indianapolis for breakfast with the Pence family. Swayed by Pence's aggressive pitch, Trump agreed to ditch Christie and make Pence his VP the following day, according to a source. On the face of it, though, there seems little reason to suppose that Manafort's boosterism and Trump's ultimate decision to choose Pence as his running mate had much, if anything, to do with Russia. As the New York Times put it, choosing Pence - a D.C. insider 'with unimpeachable conservative credentials, warm relationships in Washington and a vast reservoir of good will with the Christian right' - was more 'a concession to standard political imperatives' for a candidate who ran as the quintessential outsider. If Vice President Pence had any deep, compromising ties with Russia, they have yet to be proved real.

nan

One of Vice President Mike Pence's older brothers, Ed Pence, is an executive at Cummins Inc., a company that manufactures engines for the Russian military and has also used lobbying firms connected with Paul Manafort, indicating that Mike Pence may have compromising ties to Russia.

Neutral

Unlike some other members of the Trump administration and 2016 campaign staff, Vice President Mike Pence has remained relatively unscathed by accusations of inappropriate Russian contacts. However, an Internet rumor linking one of his brothers to a company that does business in Russia alleges that Pence, too, has questionable Russian ties. We first encountered the rumor in late 2017, when several readers e-mailed us queries posing questions such as: 'Does Mike Pence's brother make engines for the Russian military? And did said company hire Paul Manafort's consulting firm? Thus, is there any merit to the claim that Paul Manafort helped pick Mike Pence as a running mate and it would profit them (Pence family) greatly if Russian sanctions were lifted?' The timing of the queries coincided with an eruption of social media posts raising precisely the same issues: Pence's Brother sells engines to Russia. Manafort introduced trump/Pence & told trump to choose Pence for VP. Another trump man w/Russia connections! #TrumpPenceRussia#RESIST - Sherry (@SherryGramjams) November 11, 2017 Don't forget Pence's brôther makes engines for the Russian military....#NoJoke 👉https://t.co/irGIU9DroS pic.twitter.com/iEortnX46S - 🇵🇷🇺🇸Alexander Hamilton🚨: #WagTheDog (@AHamiltonSpirit) October 9, 2017 Many such posts linked to a 21 June 2017 article on the Mining Awareness blog that explored the relationships between Mike Pence, Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturing company which is headquartered in Pence's hometown of Columbus, Indiana, and at which his brother, Ed Pence, served as a top executive for years), and Russia. Cummins has participated in joint ventures with Russian companies going back to the early 1990s. In 2006, for example, Cummins signed an agreement with KAMAZ, a truck manufacturer in which the Russian government is a major stakeholder, to form the joint venture Cummins-Kama. And Cummins did, for a period of time, make engines for use in Russian tanks (specifically the 'Tigr' armored vehicle). According to the Russian-language news web site Lenta.ru, it ceased doing so in 2016, however, when the tank's main manufacturer decided to use Russian-made engines instead. The article noted that Cummins's Russian business interests could render the company's bottom line vulnerable to U.S. sanctions and thus, by virtue of his family and hometown connections to Cummins, predispose Mike Pence to show favoritism toward Russia. It went on to suggest that this was the 'probable reason' that Pence, who headed Trump's transition team in 2016, ignored credible warnings about Michael Flynn's conflicts of interest vis-a-vis Russia and hired him as national security adviser anyway (and eventually Flynn resigned after it was made public that he had misled Pence about his contacts with Russia): VP Pence's brother Ed appears deeply dependent upon Russia for some time - from 2005 as VP and General Manager of the Heavy Duty Engine Business of Cummins and starting in Feb 1, 2013 as VP and General Manager of the High Horsepower Engine Business of Cummins. Pence became Governor of Indiana in Jan. 2013. Cummins VP Pence appears the probable reason that U.S. VP Pence ignored Congressman Cummings warnings about Flynn and Russia. It provides motive. Besides being purely speculative, the article failed to establish any deep Pence-Russia connection, however. It was so fixated on Russia, in fact, that it completely overlooked the bigger picture comprising Cummins's vast and varied international business dealings. As of 2015, according to Fortune, the company was operating in no fewer than 90 countries worldwide. During Ed Pence's tenure as a Cummins executive, it launched joint ventures not just in Russia, but also in India, China, Japan, South Korea, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, and elsewhere. If there is a compelling reason to suppose that Pence's fortunes were more 'deeply dependent' on Russia than any of those other countries, it went unstated. We should also note that as of December 2017, Ed Pence no longer works at Cummins Inc. His departure was announced in a 7 December press release congratulating Pence on his retirement after having been with the company for 36 years. For most of that time he worked in the purchasing and sales departments. The supposed link between Ed Pence and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is equally tenuous. As a number of sources have pointed out, Cummins Inc. has long used lobbying firms with which Manafort was distantly associated - beginning in 1999 with BKSH & Associates (formerly known as BMSK, or Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly) and continuing from 2009 to the present with Prime Policy Group (a spin-off of BKSH & Associates) - but Manafort was neither a partner in, nor employed by, those firms during that period of time. And although at least one of his former partners (Charles Black) has been identified by name as a lobbyist for Cummins over the years, Paul Manafort himself has not. According to mainstream news coverage, Paul Manafort did play a role, during his brief tenure as Trump's campaign manager, in convincing the candidate to select Mike Pence as his running mate. CBS News reported this version of events: First reported by the New York Post, an indecisive Trump had initially decided on Christie after the New Jersey governor made his final case to Trump on July 12. Christie, the first former presidential candidate to get behind Trump after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, had assumed a high profile role on the campaign prior to the Convention - reaching out to donors and potential high profile supporters. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager at the time, allegedly had another idea in mind. Manafort had arranged for Trump to meet with his first choice for the job on July 13: Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Afterwards, the plans was for Trump and Pence to then fly back to New York together and a formal announcement would be made, a campaign source said of Manafort's thinking. What had previously been reported as a 'lucky break' by the New York Times was actually a swift political maneuver devised by the now fired campaign manager. Set on changing Trump's mind, he concocted a story that Trump's plane had mechanical problems, forcing the soon-to-be Republican nominee to stay the night in Indianapolis for breakfast with the Pence family. Swayed by Pence's aggressive pitch, Trump agreed to ditch Christie and make Pence his VP the following day, according to a source. On the face of it, though, there seems little reason to suppose that Manafort's boosterism and Trump's ultimate decision to choose Pence as his running mate had much, if anything, to do with Russia. As the New York Times put it, choosing Pence - a D.C. insider 'with unimpeachable conservative credentials, warm relationships in Washington and a vast reservoir of good will with the Christian right' - was more 'a concession to standard political imperatives' for a candidate who ran as the quintessential outsider. If Vice President Pence had any deep, compromising ties with Russia, they have yet to be proved real.

nan

A video shows a mother forcibly shaving her daughter's head as punishment for making fun of a bald cancer patient.

Neutral

In June 2016, a video showing a mother forcibly shaving her daughter's head was widely circulated via social media, along with a backstory holding that the girl had made fun of a bald cancer patient, so her mother chose to give her 'a taste of her own medicine' and shave her head as a punishment for her bullying. The most popular version of the video was posted to the Facebook page Bizarrefeed under the caption 'Mom Shaves Girl's Head After She Bullied Girl with Cancer': However, the very same video had been circulated online well over a year earlier with nary a mention of cancer; rather, back then the clip was accompanied by the claim that the young woman had been punished with a head-shaving after her mother had found naked pictures of her on Facebook: Mother shaves her daughter bald after seeing naked pictures of her daughter on Facebook It is still unclear for us which language is being spoken, but we can clearly state that the daughter and the mother both need some serious help. It is not a normal method to shave your daughter bald after she has performed something bad. Yes, what the daughter has done is not good for anybody, but the reaction of the mother will only make the situation worse. Neither version of the video was accompanied by anything (other than repetition) documenting that the proffered backstory was true. Some commenters maintained that the dialogue indicates the girl in the video was punished for some form of licentiousness and makes no mention of bullying or cancer patients: Actually, it's not about bullying someone with cancer. The young daughter was being punished for having premarital sex and the family agreed to cut hair to make her unattractive to young men. Don't believe the headlines you read especially when it's in a different language. The persons shown in the video are speaking Portuguese, and since we happened to be in Brazil at the time this video went viral, we asked some bilingual locals if they could understand the dialogue. They all acknowledged that the audio was very difficult to make out, and they gave responses ranging from 'See what happens when you laugh at people with cancer ...' to 'See what happens with your brother ...' (and the former group admitted they may have been influenced by knowing the video's supposed backstory). The details of the video (such as whom it pictures, and when and where it was taken) are unknown, there is no substantive documentation of what it depicts, the dialog is unclear, and we don't know who filmed it or whether what it shows was real or staged, so what the video's true backstory is remains unclear.

nan

A video shows a mother forcibly shaving her daughter's head as punishment for making fun of a bald cancer patient.

Neutral

In June 2016, a video showing a mother forcibly shaving her daughter's head was widely circulated via social media, along with a backstory holding that the girl had made fun of a bald cancer patient, so her mother chose to give her 'a taste of her own medicine' and shave her head as a punishment for her bullying. The most popular version of the video was posted to the Facebook page Bizarrefeed under the caption 'Mom Shaves Girl's Head After She Bullied Girl with Cancer': However, the very same video had been circulated online well over a year earlier with nary a mention of cancer; rather, back then the clip was accompanied by the claim that the young woman had been punished with a head-shaving after her mother had found naked pictures of her on Facebook: Mother shaves her daughter bald after seeing naked pictures of her daughter on Facebook It is still unclear for us which language is being spoken, but we can clearly state that the daughter and the mother both need some serious help. It is not a normal method to shave your daughter bald after she has performed something bad. Yes, what the daughter has done is not good for anybody, but the reaction of the mother will only make the situation worse. Neither version of the video was accompanied by anything (other than repetition) documenting that the proffered backstory was true. Some commenters maintained that the dialogue indicates the girl in the video was punished for some form of licentiousness and makes no mention of bullying or cancer patients: Actually, it's not about bullying someone with cancer. The young daughter was being punished for having premarital sex and the family agreed to cut hair to make her unattractive to young men. Don't believe the headlines you read especially when it's in a different language. The persons shown in the video are speaking Portuguese, and since we happened to be in Brazil at the time this video went viral, we asked some bilingual locals if they could understand the dialogue. They all acknowledged that the audio was very difficult to make out, and they gave responses ranging from 'See what happens when you laugh at people with cancer ...' to 'See what happens with your brother ...' (and the former group admitted they may have been influenced by knowing the video's supposed backstory). The details of the video (such as whom it pictures, and when and where it was taken) are unknown, there is no substantive documentation of what it depicts, the dialog is unclear, and we don't know who filmed it or whether what it shows was real or staged, so what the video's true backstory is remains unclear.

nan

Drug-laced suckers are being handed out to children in Arkansas.

Neutral

In mid-October 2004 this warning came to our inbox scant weeks before Halloween: North Little Rock Police Department put out a warning. Someone is giving middle school & high school kids suckers that look like: Maple Leafs; Pumpkins & Santa Claus that are laced with three different TYPES OF VERY STRONG DRUGS THAT ARE HALLUCINOGENIC, and this is STRONG ENOUGH TO KILL a child or teenager. The Police station received a tip from the Memphis, TN police. Some arrest in Memphis have been made. These suckers have turned up in Blytheville. Officials' fears that these suckers will begin to show up throughout the state. If you have children, or know someone with children, PLEASE inform them of this possible threat to our children. At first blush, it looked like a standard expression of parental anxiety typical to a season centered on children taking candy from supposedly altruistic strangers: worry about the safety of one's own trick-or-treaters was finding voice in the form of a rumor about villains handing out drug-laced suckers to kids. Yet, while baseless concern over a crime that isn't happening is certainly part of this hearsay about lollipops, it is not the all of it. This rumor is a bit of an odd duck to classify in that while the lollipop-profferring knaves pressing their drug-laced confections onto unsuspecting children in hopes of corrupting the tots are naught but fanciful imaginings, the candies as described in the alert are real. It appears that a valid report about drugs confiscated by the police has fallen into the hands of someone whose imagination added the bit about the lollipop-disguised hallucinogens being given to children. The e-mailed warning makes it appear the information has come from the North Little Rock Police Department, which was not the case. That branch of law enforcement has made it abundantly clear that it had nothing to do with the matter. On 11 October 2004, the North Little Rock Police Department posted this denial on its web site: The North Little Rock Police Department has been falsely mentioned in a circulating email about tainted Halloween candy. The North Little Rock Police Department has been the subject of a recent email making false claims about 'hallucinogenic suckers' that supposedly originated from Memphis, TN. These suckers are described in the email as being tainted and strong enough to kill a child. THIS EMAIL STATES THAT THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS WARNING PARENTS AND CHILDREN ABOUT TAINTED SUCKERS IN THE SHAPE OF MAPLE LEAFS, PUMPKINS AND SANTA CLAUS. THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION OF THIS NATURE FROM ANY POLICE AGENCY AND HAS NEVER PROVIDED SUCH A WARNING. We are investigating the origins of this email in order to determine if any of this information is based on fact. Likewise, police in Blytheville have disavowed the claim of the adulterated suckers having turned up there. 'We have gotten several phone calls about the e-mailed information,' said Royce Carpenter, that town's Police Chief. 'But there have been none of these suckers found in Blytheville.' Similarly, the Memphis Police Department denied any such lollipops having being found by them or their having made arrests on such cases. Okay, so these sinister pops haven't been found in Blytheville, and there haven't been any lollipop-associated arrests in Memphis. There have also not been any reports of children in Arkansas being given suspect lollys. Those parts of the rumor are pure embroidery. However, while the candies have not shown up in Arkansas, they do indeed exist. While there aren't diabolical types lurking in anticipation of pressing them into the eager hands of treat-seeking tots, there are drug dealers selling them to customers. And there have been lollipop-related arrests in the parts of the nation where the candies have been found. The information that forms the basis of the e-mailed alert about pharmaceutical-laced suckers came from a June 2004 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) publication. The article in question detailed a number of drug finds around the country, including the discovery in Philadelphia of large electronic capacitors loaded with heroin, and in Nogales, Arizona, of fire extinguishers packed with cocaine. Getting illegal drugs past U.S. Customs by disguising them as innocuous items is business as usual in the drug trade. Although the more typical method is to conceal outlawed pharmaceuticals inside hollow items, sometimes what is being smuggled is incorporated into foodstuffs. The lollipops reported on by the DEA were the maple leaf and Santa head of the e-mailed caution. According to that agency, each of these bonbons weighed approximately 10 grams and were green, red, or amber in color. One cache of the candies had been confiscated by the Chicago Police in early January 2004 and another in March. These THC- and PCP-enhanced sweets known as 'dro pops' were being sold in that city for $10 to $30 each. There were no reports of any unsuspecting parties having been made ill by the disguised drugs, let alone of any children harmed by them. (THC is the main substance in marijuana. PCP, which also goes by the name 'angel dust,' is known for inducing violent behavior in those who take it.) We noted earlier the Memphis Police Department denied having found such lollipops. Yet there is a Memphis connection with this rumor, because in March 2004 Captain Bill Rasco with the DeSoto County Sheriff's Department said of the corrupted sweets, 'These are going around the schools now. These things are dangerous.' Rasco was commenting on the finds in Chicago (none of the suckers had turned up in DeSoto schools), but his remarks appeared in the Commercial Appeal, the major newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee. That article also contained something very much in line with the e-mail's 'Officials' fears that these suckers will begin to show up throughout the state' - it said of the pops, 'The department believes they may be here in the next few days or weeks' (which, as it turned out, was not the case). Also in the DEA article about disguised drug finds was a report of heroin-filled lollipops being seized at LaGuardia airport. In the accompanying photograph of three of the sweets broken open to reveal the brown powder stashed therein, one of the confiscated candies appeared vibrantly orange-colored, which, along with its round shape, could make it the unaccounted-for 'pumpkin' style of lollipop talked about in the warning e-mail. If so, it would bring the number of drugs up to the online alert's three (THC, PCP, and heroin). As to why anyone would think to fashion drugs into the form of suckers for any intent other than tricking youngsters into getting high and possibly hooked, we can quickly think of three valid reasons, none of which have anything to do with luring children down the primrose path to their destruction. First, those looking to import illegal substances have a better likelihood of success if their wares can pass for something other than contraband. By concealing the drugs inside candy shells (as was the case with the LaGuardia haul), there is a far greater possibility of getting them past Customs and DEA personnel. In such instances, the lollipops are no more than temporary containers meant to be smashed open and discarded once they've served their purpose of hoodwinking those attempting to safeguard the borders. Second, a great many drug users are young adults who delight in fanciful shapes and markings on their drugs, possibly in appreciation of the whimsy of it all. Ecstasy tablets stamped with the likenesses of cartoon characters are routinely turned up by law enforcement. Though less common now, in the 1970s blotter sheets of LSD were also printed with cartoon characters (a circumstance that sparked a long-lived rumor about children tricked into applying drug-saturated rub-on 'tattoos' to themselves). The THC and PCP Santas and maple leaves would market well among such a clientele, a fact that would not be lost on those who make it their business to vend illegal feel-goods. Third, having the ability to ingest illegal pharmaceuticals in a surreptitious manner would hold great appeal to many who use recreational drugs. Those drawn to the drug culture find at least some of its allure lies in the sense of using being a forbidden activity; by indulging in illegal substances and by so doing breaking one of Society's taboos, they come to view themselves as living daring, exciting lives in which the normal rules do not apply. For such, the ability to suck on a candy that was getting them high while having a conversation with the boss or a parent would be almost beyond price. The sense of having gotten away with something would add that little extra spice to the experience, further underscoring their self-concept of being counter-culture darlings. So, are there drug-infused lollipops? Yes, there have been, but the last ones were seen in Chicago in March 2004. Have youngsters innocent of any desire to get high been plied with these suckers by the ill-intentioned? There are no reports of this, not so much as one recorded instance. Given the span of time since these pops last surfaced and the lack of child-related incidents, we think this warning hardly the stuff of 'If you have children, or know someone with children, PLEASE inform them of this possible threat to our children.'

nan

Drug-laced suckers are being handed out to children in Arkansas.

Neutral

In mid-October 2004 this warning came to our inbox scant weeks before Halloween: North Little Rock Police Department put out a warning. Someone is giving middle school & high school kids suckers that look like: Maple Leafs; Pumpkins & Santa Claus that are laced with three different TYPES OF VERY STRONG DRUGS THAT ARE HALLUCINOGENIC, and this is STRONG ENOUGH TO KILL a child or teenager. The Police station received a tip from the Memphis, TN police. Some arrest in Memphis have been made. These suckers have turned up in Blytheville. Officials' fears that these suckers will begin to show up throughout the state. If you have children, or know someone with children, PLEASE inform them of this possible threat to our children. At first blush, it looked like a standard expression of parental anxiety typical to a season centered on children taking candy from supposedly altruistic strangers: worry about the safety of one's own trick-or-treaters was finding voice in the form of a rumor about villains handing out drug-laced suckers to kids. Yet, while baseless concern over a crime that isn't happening is certainly part of this hearsay about lollipops, it is not the all of it. This rumor is a bit of an odd duck to classify in that while the lollipop-profferring knaves pressing their drug-laced confections onto unsuspecting children in hopes of corrupting the tots are naught but fanciful imaginings, the candies as described in the alert are real. It appears that a valid report about drugs confiscated by the police has fallen into the hands of someone whose imagination added the bit about the lollipop-disguised hallucinogens being given to children. The e-mailed warning makes it appear the information has come from the North Little Rock Police Department, which was not the case. That branch of law enforcement has made it abundantly clear that it had nothing to do with the matter. On 11 October 2004, the North Little Rock Police Department posted this denial on its web site: The North Little Rock Police Department has been falsely mentioned in a circulating email about tainted Halloween candy. The North Little Rock Police Department has been the subject of a recent email making false claims about 'hallucinogenic suckers' that supposedly originated from Memphis, TN. These suckers are described in the email as being tainted and strong enough to kill a child. THIS EMAIL STATES THAT THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS WARNING PARENTS AND CHILDREN ABOUT TAINTED SUCKERS IN THE SHAPE OF MAPLE LEAFS, PUMPKINS AND SANTA CLAUS. THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION OF THIS NATURE FROM ANY POLICE AGENCY AND HAS NEVER PROVIDED SUCH A WARNING. We are investigating the origins of this email in order to determine if any of this information is based on fact. Likewise, police in Blytheville have disavowed the claim of the adulterated suckers having turned up there. 'We have gotten several phone calls about the e-mailed information,' said Royce Carpenter, that town's Police Chief. 'But there have been none of these suckers found in Blytheville.' Similarly, the Memphis Police Department denied any such lollipops having being found by them or their having made arrests on such cases. Okay, so these sinister pops haven't been found in Blytheville, and there haven't been any lollipop-associated arrests in Memphis. There have also not been any reports of children in Arkansas being given suspect lollys. Those parts of the rumor are pure embroidery. However, while the candies have not shown up in Arkansas, they do indeed exist. While there aren't diabolical types lurking in anticipation of pressing them into the eager hands of treat-seeking tots, there are drug dealers selling them to customers. And there have been lollipop-related arrests in the parts of the nation where the candies have been found. The information that forms the basis of the e-mailed alert about pharmaceutical-laced suckers came from a June 2004 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) publication. The article in question detailed a number of drug finds around the country, including the discovery in Philadelphia of large electronic capacitors loaded with heroin, and in Nogales, Arizona, of fire extinguishers packed with cocaine. Getting illegal drugs past U.S. Customs by disguising them as innocuous items is business as usual in the drug trade. Although the more typical method is to conceal outlawed pharmaceuticals inside hollow items, sometimes what is being smuggled is incorporated into foodstuffs. The lollipops reported on by the DEA were the maple leaf and Santa head of the e-mailed caution. According to that agency, each of these bonbons weighed approximately 10 grams and were green, red, or amber in color. One cache of the candies had been confiscated by the Chicago Police in early January 2004 and another in March. These THC- and PCP-enhanced sweets known as 'dro pops' were being sold in that city for $10 to $30 each. There were no reports of any unsuspecting parties having been made ill by the disguised drugs, let alone of any children harmed by them. (THC is the main substance in marijuana. PCP, which also goes by the name 'angel dust,' is known for inducing violent behavior in those who take it.) We noted earlier the Memphis Police Department denied having found such lollipops. Yet there is a Memphis connection with this rumor, because in March 2004 Captain Bill Rasco with the DeSoto County Sheriff's Department said of the corrupted sweets, 'These are going around the schools now. These things are dangerous.' Rasco was commenting on the finds in Chicago (none of the suckers had turned up in DeSoto schools), but his remarks appeared in the Commercial Appeal, the major newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee. That article also contained something very much in line with the e-mail's 'Officials' fears that these suckers will begin to show up throughout the state' - it said of the pops, 'The department believes they may be here in the next few days or weeks' (which, as it turned out, was not the case). Also in the DEA article about disguised drug finds was a report of heroin-filled lollipops being seized at LaGuardia airport. In the accompanying photograph of three of the sweets broken open to reveal the brown powder stashed therein, one of the confiscated candies appeared vibrantly orange-colored, which, along with its round shape, could make it the unaccounted-for 'pumpkin' style of lollipop talked about in the warning e-mail. If so, it would bring the number of drugs up to the online alert's three (THC, PCP, and heroin). As to why anyone would think to fashion drugs into the form of suckers for any intent other than tricking youngsters into getting high and possibly hooked, we can quickly think of three valid reasons, none of which have anything to do with luring children down the primrose path to their destruction. First, those looking to import illegal substances have a better likelihood of success if their wares can pass for something other than contraband. By concealing the drugs inside candy shells (as was the case with the LaGuardia haul), there is a far greater possibility of getting them past Customs and DEA personnel. In such instances, the lollipops are no more than temporary containers meant to be smashed open and discarded once they've served their purpose of hoodwinking those attempting to safeguard the borders. Second, a great many drug users are young adults who delight in fanciful shapes and markings on their drugs, possibly in appreciation of the whimsy of it all. Ecstasy tablets stamped with the likenesses of cartoon characters are routinely turned up by law enforcement. Though less common now, in the 1970s blotter sheets of LSD were also printed with cartoon characters (a circumstance that sparked a long-lived rumor about children tricked into applying drug-saturated rub-on 'tattoos' to themselves). The THC and PCP Santas and maple leaves would market well among such a clientele, a fact that would not be lost on those who make it their business to vend illegal feel-goods. Third, having the ability to ingest illegal pharmaceuticals in a surreptitious manner would hold great appeal to many who use recreational drugs. Those drawn to the drug culture find at least some of its allure lies in the sense of using being a forbidden activity; by indulging in illegal substances and by so doing breaking one of Society's taboos, they come to view themselves as living daring, exciting lives in which the normal rules do not apply. For such, the ability to suck on a candy that was getting them high while having a conversation with the boss or a parent would be almost beyond price. The sense of having gotten away with something would add that little extra spice to the experience, further underscoring their self-concept of being counter-culture darlings. So, are there drug-infused lollipops? Yes, there have been, but the last ones were seen in Chicago in March 2004. Have youngsters innocent of any desire to get high been plied with these suckers by the ill-intentioned? There are no reports of this, not so much as one recorded instance. Given the span of time since these pops last surfaced and the lack of child-related incidents, we think this warning hardly the stuff of 'If you have children, or know someone with children, PLEASE inform them of this possible threat to our children.'

nan

A baby was thrown from Grenfell Tower while it was on fire and caught by an unidentified man.

Neutral

In June 2017, after a devastating fire at Grenfell Tower in London left at least eighty people dead, press accounts quoted people saying they saw babies being thrown from the building during the disaster. One witness, Samira Lamrani, was featured by multiple media outlets. She said at the time: A lady appeared at the window gesturing, body language from what she was saying, 'I'm about to throw my baby, please catch the baby.' And the baby, I think, was packed in some sort of bedsheet blanket. And she threw the baby. As the baby came down - and this was approximately from the ninth or tenth floor - a member of the public, a gentleman, ran forward and miraculously helped grab the baby. At least two other witnesses told the Associated Press that they also saw children being thrown from the burning building. However, these stories have not been confirmed by other sources, nor has anyone come forward to identify themselves as the 'gentleman' who Lamrani said she saw catch the falling child. Catching a baby thrown from that height would be a remarkable feat, although not impossible. Going by Lamrani's statement that the child was thrown from the 'ninth or tenth floor' of the 220-foot building, we estimated that they were thrown from 92 feet up. If the child weighed 22 pounds - placing it with the Centers for Disease Control's 50th percentile for children under the age of three - then they would fall at about 51 miles per hour (assuming the fall is too short for it to achieve terminal velocity). The London Metropolitan Police Department told us that it was focusing its efforts on investigating fatalities associated with the fire. On 28 June 2017, temporary Detective Chief Superintendent Fiona McCormack said in a statement that investigators believe that around 80 people are either dead or missing, adding, 'I must presume that they are dead': Our search continues to make sure that we recover all of those who died in the fire - it will be a painstaking fingertip search. Sadly, due to the devastation caused by the fire there are a very small number of flats that it aren't safe for us to work inside - experts are doing all they can to solve that for us. We are working very hard to identify everyone who died in the fire but the tragic reality is that due to the intense heat of the fire there are some people who we may never identify.Recent Updates Correction, 30 June 2017: A previous version of this article stated that the baby would reach a terminal velocity of 170 miles per hour.

nan

A baby was thrown from Grenfell Tower while it was on fire and caught by an unidentified man.

Neutral

In June 2017, after a devastating fire at Grenfell Tower in London left at least eighty people dead, press accounts quoted people saying they saw babies being thrown from the building during the disaster. One witness, Samira Lamrani, was featured by multiple media outlets. She said at the time: A lady appeared at the window gesturing, body language from what she was saying, 'I'm about to throw my baby, please catch the baby.' And the baby, I think, was packed in some sort of bedsheet blanket. And she threw the baby. As the baby came down - and this was approximately from the ninth or tenth floor - a member of the public, a gentleman, ran forward and miraculously helped grab the baby. At least two other witnesses told the Associated Press that they also saw children being thrown from the burning building. However, these stories have not been confirmed by other sources, nor has anyone come forward to identify themselves as the 'gentleman' who Lamrani said she saw catch the falling child. Catching a baby thrown from that height would be a remarkable feat, although not impossible. Going by Lamrani's statement that the child was thrown from the 'ninth or tenth floor' of the 220-foot building, we estimated that they were thrown from 92 feet up. If the child weighed 22 pounds - placing it with the Centers for Disease Control's 50th percentile for children under the age of three - then they would fall at about 51 miles per hour (assuming the fall is too short for it to achieve terminal velocity). The London Metropolitan Police Department told us that it was focusing its efforts on investigating fatalities associated with the fire. On 28 June 2017, temporary Detective Chief Superintendent Fiona McCormack said in a statement that investigators believe that around 80 people are either dead or missing, adding, 'I must presume that they are dead': Our search continues to make sure that we recover all of those who died in the fire - it will be a painstaking fingertip search. Sadly, due to the devastation caused by the fire there are a very small number of flats that it aren't safe for us to work inside - experts are doing all they can to solve that for us. We are working very hard to identify everyone who died in the fire but the tragic reality is that due to the intense heat of the fire there are some people who we may never identify.Recent Updates Correction, 30 June 2017: A previous version of this article stated that the baby would reach a terminal velocity of 170 miles per hour.

nan

Researchers in Cuba have discovered a cancer vaccine that is already saving thousands of people.

Neutral

On 7 July 2017, TheNativePeople.net published a story reporting that Cuba has been evidently sitting on a cancer vaccine that has already cured thousands of people. In the article, which has since been shared thousands of times, the author writes: There are many scientists who have dedicated their life in the search for the cure, and there are many promising natural alternatives that can replace chemotherapy and radiation in the future. The latest example is a research from Cuba, where a small group of scientists with a limited budget have been able to develop a vaccine against cancer that has cured more than 4000 people! The scientific community is impressed by the Cuban discovery, and many doctors claim that the cure for cancer has finally been found! The vaccine has produced incredible results even in the more advanced stages of cancer. It finally saw the light of day after 16 years of intense research, and doesn't have any adverse side-effects. The treatment this story highlights does indeed exist in Cuba. It's a therapy (named CIMAvax) used to treat lung cancer, and which has begun being used in clinical trials in the United States. The treatment, contrary to the suggestion of the headline, is not meant to prevent the future occurrence of disease like a traditional vaccine. Vaccine, in this case, refers to the fact that CIMAvax provokes an immune response - as with a vaccine - which then signals a person's own immune system to attack the cancer's ability to grow (as opposed to inoculating against future outbreaks). As described in a November 2016 feature in The Atlantic: [Cuban researchers used an] unusually powerful meningitis protein and fused it to part of another protein called epidermal growth factor, or EGF. EGF is important for controlling cancer because, as its name implies, EGF makes cells grow, and cancer is essentially cells growing out of control. When injected, this fused hybrid protein kicks a patient's immune system into high gear (thanks to the meningitis) and targets cancer cells (thanks to the EGF). That's how CIMAvax is supposed to work. It's called a vaccine because like other vaccines, it stimulates the immune system, but it is actually used to treat rather than prevent lung cancer. The drug, which was originally developed by the Cuban Ministry of Public Health in the 1990s, has undergone several animal and human clinical trials in Cuba, and is currently licensed there for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. The most recent Cuban trial, a phase III study of 405 individuals with this kind of lung cancer, concluded: Patients receiving at least 4 doses of the vaccine [...] had a significant advantage in overall survival. Patients with high [concentrations of EGF in their system] had the largest benefit and [median survival time] after vaccination was 14.66 months. While these results are promising, claims that 'thousands' have been 'cured' of cancer as a result of this drug are unsupported by published research, and appear to stem from reports that 5000 people have been treated with the drug since 2011. Indeed, improvements to survival were generally on the order of months, and around 20 percent of cases from these clinical trials showed no improvement compared to control groups. Due to regulations stemming from the United States embargo on Cuban goods, the drug has been unexplored in the United States until fairly recently. In late 2016, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York received approval to embark on a collaboration with Cuban researchers to bring CIMAvax clinical trials to the U.S., capping a lengthy process to get approval from the Obama Administration that began in 2011. In addition to Cuba, CIMAvax has been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. Michael Caligiuri of the American Association for Cancer Research told PBS Newshour that success in Cuba does not necessarily mean the drug will be met with similar success in the United States: Whenever there's an early evidence of efficacy in a single population, a single institution study, the chance that it will be replicated inter-institutionally is real, but not a given. The U.S. trials began in January 2017, and researchers are currently recruiting participants. If the drug's efficacy is demonstrated by the standards of the U.S. Food and Drug administration, Roswell Park Cancer Institute scientist Kevin Lee says it could potentially change the way in which doctors approach cancer treatment by targeting not the cancer itself, but by changing a body's ability to contain a cancer that it was previously unable to combat: There is an idea that's developing of converting cancer into a chronic disease. We give you a pill that you take every day, and it allows you to live a perfectly normal life. While the drug is real and has shown promise against a specific kind of lung cancer, claims that it is a blanket 'cure' for all of cancer overstate both the scope of the drug and the nature of its clinical success. Therefore, we rate that claim that Cuban researchers already have a cancer vaccine that has cured thousands of people as a mixture.

nan

Researchers in Cuba have discovered a cancer vaccine that is already saving thousands of people.

Neutral

On 7 July 2017, TheNativePeople.net published a story reporting that Cuba has been evidently sitting on a cancer vaccine that has already cured thousands of people. In the article, which has since been shared thousands of times, the author writes: There are many scientists who have dedicated their life in the search for the cure, and there are many promising natural alternatives that can replace chemotherapy and radiation in the future. The latest example is a research from Cuba, where a small group of scientists with a limited budget have been able to develop a vaccine against cancer that has cured more than 4000 people! The scientific community is impressed by the Cuban discovery, and many doctors claim that the cure for cancer has finally been found! The vaccine has produced incredible results even in the more advanced stages of cancer. It finally saw the light of day after 16 years of intense research, and doesn't have any adverse side-effects. The treatment this story highlights does indeed exist in Cuba. It's a therapy (named CIMAvax) used to treat lung cancer, and which has begun being used in clinical trials in the United States. The treatment, contrary to the suggestion of the headline, is not meant to prevent the future occurrence of disease like a traditional vaccine. Vaccine, in this case, refers to the fact that CIMAvax provokes an immune response - as with a vaccine - which then signals a person's own immune system to attack the cancer's ability to grow (as opposed to inoculating against future outbreaks). As described in a November 2016 feature in The Atlantic: [Cuban researchers used an] unusually powerful meningitis protein and fused it to part of another protein called epidermal growth factor, or EGF. EGF is important for controlling cancer because, as its name implies, EGF makes cells grow, and cancer is essentially cells growing out of control. When injected, this fused hybrid protein kicks a patient's immune system into high gear (thanks to the meningitis) and targets cancer cells (thanks to the EGF). That's how CIMAvax is supposed to work. It's called a vaccine because like other vaccines, it stimulates the immune system, but it is actually used to treat rather than prevent lung cancer. The drug, which was originally developed by the Cuban Ministry of Public Health in the 1990s, has undergone several animal and human clinical trials in Cuba, and is currently licensed there for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. The most recent Cuban trial, a phase III study of 405 individuals with this kind of lung cancer, concluded: Patients receiving at least 4 doses of the vaccine [...] had a significant advantage in overall survival. Patients with high [concentrations of EGF in their system] had the largest benefit and [median survival time] after vaccination was 14.66 months. While these results are promising, claims that 'thousands' have been 'cured' of cancer as a result of this drug are unsupported by published research, and appear to stem from reports that 5000 people have been treated with the drug since 2011. Indeed, improvements to survival were generally on the order of months, and around 20 percent of cases from these clinical trials showed no improvement compared to control groups. Due to regulations stemming from the United States embargo on Cuban goods, the drug has been unexplored in the United States until fairly recently. In late 2016, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York received approval to embark on a collaboration with Cuban researchers to bring CIMAvax clinical trials to the U.S., capping a lengthy process to get approval from the Obama Administration that began in 2011. In addition to Cuba, CIMAvax has been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. Michael Caligiuri of the American Association for Cancer Research told PBS Newshour that success in Cuba does not necessarily mean the drug will be met with similar success in the United States: Whenever there's an early evidence of efficacy in a single population, a single institution study, the chance that it will be replicated inter-institutionally is real, but not a given. The U.S. trials began in January 2017, and researchers are currently recruiting participants. If the drug's efficacy is demonstrated by the standards of the U.S. Food and Drug administration, Roswell Park Cancer Institute scientist Kevin Lee says it could potentially change the way in which doctors approach cancer treatment by targeting not the cancer itself, but by changing a body's ability to contain a cancer that it was previously unable to combat: There is an idea that's developing of converting cancer into a chronic disease. We give you a pill that you take every day, and it allows you to live a perfectly normal life. While the drug is real and has shown promise against a specific kind of lung cancer, claims that it is a blanket 'cure' for all of cancer overstate both the scope of the drug and the nature of its clinical success. Therefore, we rate that claim that Cuban researchers already have a cancer vaccine that has cured thousands of people as a mixture.

nan

Researchers in Cuba have discovered a cancer vaccine that is already saving thousands of people.

Neutral

On 7 July 2017, TheNativePeople.net published a story reporting that Cuba has been evidently sitting on a cancer vaccine that has already cured thousands of people. In the article, which has since been shared thousands of times, the author writes: There are many scientists who have dedicated their life in the search for the cure, and there are many promising natural alternatives that can replace chemotherapy and radiation in the future. The latest example is a research from Cuba, where a small group of scientists with a limited budget have been able to develop a vaccine against cancer that has cured more than 4000 people! The scientific community is impressed by the Cuban discovery, and many doctors claim that the cure for cancer has finally been found! The vaccine has produced incredible results even in the more advanced stages of cancer. It finally saw the light of day after 16 years of intense research, and doesn't have any adverse side-effects. The treatment this story highlights does indeed exist in Cuba. It's a therapy (named CIMAvax) used to treat lung cancer, and which has begun being used in clinical trials in the United States. The treatment, contrary to the suggestion of the headline, is not meant to prevent the future occurrence of disease like a traditional vaccine. Vaccine, in this case, refers to the fact that CIMAvax provokes an immune response - as with a vaccine - which then signals a person's own immune system to attack the cancer's ability to grow (as opposed to inoculating against future outbreaks). As described in a November 2016 feature in The Atlantic: [Cuban researchers used an] unusually powerful meningitis protein and fused it to part of another protein called epidermal growth factor, or EGF. EGF is important for controlling cancer because, as its name implies, EGF makes cells grow, and cancer is essentially cells growing out of control. When injected, this fused hybrid protein kicks a patient's immune system into high gear (thanks to the meningitis) and targets cancer cells (thanks to the EGF). That's how CIMAvax is supposed to work. It's called a vaccine because like other vaccines, it stimulates the immune system, but it is actually used to treat rather than prevent lung cancer. The drug, which was originally developed by the Cuban Ministry of Public Health in the 1990s, has undergone several animal and human clinical trials in Cuba, and is currently licensed there for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. The most recent Cuban trial, a phase III study of 405 individuals with this kind of lung cancer, concluded: Patients receiving at least 4 doses of the vaccine [...] had a significant advantage in overall survival. Patients with high [concentrations of EGF in their system] had the largest benefit and [median survival time] after vaccination was 14.66 months. While these results are promising, claims that 'thousands' have been 'cured' of cancer as a result of this drug are unsupported by published research, and appear to stem from reports that 5000 people have been treated with the drug since 2011. Indeed, improvements to survival were generally on the order of months, and around 20 percent of cases from these clinical trials showed no improvement compared to control groups. Due to regulations stemming from the United States embargo on Cuban goods, the drug has been unexplored in the United States until fairly recently. In late 2016, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York received approval to embark on a collaboration with Cuban researchers to bring CIMAvax clinical trials to the U.S., capping a lengthy process to get approval from the Obama Administration that began in 2011. In addition to Cuba, CIMAvax has been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. Michael Caligiuri of the American Association for Cancer Research told PBS Newshour that success in Cuba does not necessarily mean the drug will be met with similar success in the United States: Whenever there's an early evidence of efficacy in a single population, a single institution study, the chance that it will be replicated inter-institutionally is real, but not a given. The U.S. trials began in January 2017, and researchers are currently recruiting participants. If the drug's efficacy is demonstrated by the standards of the U.S. Food and Drug administration, Roswell Park Cancer Institute scientist Kevin Lee says it could potentially change the way in which doctors approach cancer treatment by targeting not the cancer itself, but by changing a body's ability to contain a cancer that it was previously unable to combat: There is an idea that's developing of converting cancer into a chronic disease. We give you a pill that you take every day, and it allows you to live a perfectly normal life. While the drug is real and has shown promise against a specific kind of lung cancer, claims that it is a blanket 'cure' for all of cancer overstate both the scope of the drug and the nature of its clinical success. Therefore, we rate that claim that Cuban researchers already have a cancer vaccine that has cured thousands of people as a mixture.

nan

Researchers in Cuba have discovered a cancer vaccine that is already saving thousands of people.

Neutral

On 7 July 2017, TheNativePeople.net published a story reporting that Cuba has been evidently sitting on a cancer vaccine that has already cured thousands of people. In the article, which has since been shared thousands of times, the author writes: There are many scientists who have dedicated their life in the search for the cure, and there are many promising natural alternatives that can replace chemotherapy and radiation in the future. The latest example is a research from Cuba, where a small group of scientists with a limited budget have been able to develop a vaccine against cancer that has cured more than 4000 people! The scientific community is impressed by the Cuban discovery, and many doctors claim that the cure for cancer has finally been found! The vaccine has produced incredible results even in the more advanced stages of cancer. It finally saw the light of day after 16 years of intense research, and doesn't have any adverse side-effects. The treatment this story highlights does indeed exist in Cuba. It's a therapy (named CIMAvax) used to treat lung cancer, and which has begun being used in clinical trials in the United States. The treatment, contrary to the suggestion of the headline, is not meant to prevent the future occurrence of disease like a traditional vaccine. Vaccine, in this case, refers to the fact that CIMAvax provokes an immune response - as with a vaccine - which then signals a person's own immune system to attack the cancer's ability to grow (as opposed to inoculating against future outbreaks). As described in a November 2016 feature in The Atlantic: [Cuban researchers used an] unusually powerful meningitis protein and fused it to part of another protein called epidermal growth factor, or EGF. EGF is important for controlling cancer because, as its name implies, EGF makes cells grow, and cancer is essentially cells growing out of control. When injected, this fused hybrid protein kicks a patient's immune system into high gear (thanks to the meningitis) and targets cancer cells (thanks to the EGF). That's how CIMAvax is supposed to work. It's called a vaccine because like other vaccines, it stimulates the immune system, but it is actually used to treat rather than prevent lung cancer. The drug, which was originally developed by the Cuban Ministry of Public Health in the 1990s, has undergone several animal and human clinical trials in Cuba, and is currently licensed there for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. The most recent Cuban trial, a phase III study of 405 individuals with this kind of lung cancer, concluded: Patients receiving at least 4 doses of the vaccine [...] had a significant advantage in overall survival. Patients with high [concentrations of EGF in their system] had the largest benefit and [median survival time] after vaccination was 14.66 months. While these results are promising, claims that 'thousands' have been 'cured' of cancer as a result of this drug are unsupported by published research, and appear to stem from reports that 5000 people have been treated with the drug since 2011. Indeed, improvements to survival were generally on the order of months, and around 20 percent of cases from these clinical trials showed no improvement compared to control groups. Due to regulations stemming from the United States embargo on Cuban goods, the drug has been unexplored in the United States until fairly recently. In late 2016, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York received approval to embark on a collaboration with Cuban researchers to bring CIMAvax clinical trials to the U.S., capping a lengthy process to get approval from the Obama Administration that began in 2011. In addition to Cuba, CIMAvax has been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. Michael Caligiuri of the American Association for Cancer Research told PBS Newshour that success in Cuba does not necessarily mean the drug will be met with similar success in the United States: Whenever there's an early evidence of efficacy in a single population, a single institution study, the chance that it will be replicated inter-institutionally is real, but not a given. The U.S. trials began in January 2017, and researchers are currently recruiting participants. If the drug's efficacy is demonstrated by the standards of the U.S. Food and Drug administration, Roswell Park Cancer Institute scientist Kevin Lee says it could potentially change the way in which doctors approach cancer treatment by targeting not the cancer itself, but by changing a body's ability to contain a cancer that it was previously unable to combat: There is an idea that's developing of converting cancer into a chronic disease. We give you a pill that you take every day, and it allows you to live a perfectly normal life. While the drug is real and has shown promise against a specific kind of lung cancer, claims that it is a blanket 'cure' for all of cancer overstate both the scope of the drug and the nature of its clinical success. Therefore, we rate that claim that Cuban researchers already have a cancer vaccine that has cured thousands of people as a mixture.

nan

Researchers in Cuba have discovered a cancer vaccine that is already saving thousands of people.

Neutral

On 7 July 2017, TheNativePeople.net published a story reporting that Cuba has been evidently sitting on a cancer vaccine that has already cured thousands of people. In the article, which has since been shared thousands of times, the author writes: There are many scientists who have dedicated their life in the search for the cure, and there are many promising natural alternatives that can replace chemotherapy and radiation in the future. The latest example is a research from Cuba, where a small group of scientists with a limited budget have been able to develop a vaccine against cancer that has cured more than 4000 people! The scientific community is impressed by the Cuban discovery, and many doctors claim that the cure for cancer has finally been found! The vaccine has produced incredible results even in the more advanced stages of cancer. It finally saw the light of day after 16 years of intense research, and doesn't have any adverse side-effects. The treatment this story highlights does indeed exist in Cuba. It's a therapy (named CIMAvax) used to treat lung cancer, and which has begun being used in clinical trials in the United States. The treatment, contrary to the suggestion of the headline, is not meant to prevent the future occurrence of disease like a traditional vaccine. Vaccine, in this case, refers to the fact that CIMAvax provokes an immune response - as with a vaccine - which then signals a person's own immune system to attack the cancer's ability to grow (as opposed to inoculating against future outbreaks). As described in a November 2016 feature in The Atlantic: [Cuban researchers used an] unusually powerful meningitis protein and fused it to part of another protein called epidermal growth factor, or EGF. EGF is important for controlling cancer because, as its name implies, EGF makes cells grow, and cancer is essentially cells growing out of control. When injected, this fused hybrid protein kicks a patient's immune system into high gear (thanks to the meningitis) and targets cancer cells (thanks to the EGF). That's how CIMAvax is supposed to work. It's called a vaccine because like other vaccines, it stimulates the immune system, but it is actually used to treat rather than prevent lung cancer. The drug, which was originally developed by the Cuban Ministry of Public Health in the 1990s, has undergone several animal and human clinical trials in Cuba, and is currently licensed there for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. The most recent Cuban trial, a phase III study of 405 individuals with this kind of lung cancer, concluded: Patients receiving at least 4 doses of the vaccine [...] had a significant advantage in overall survival. Patients with high [concentrations of EGF in their system] had the largest benefit and [median survival time] after vaccination was 14.66 months. While these results are promising, claims that 'thousands' have been 'cured' of cancer as a result of this drug are unsupported by published research, and appear to stem from reports that 5000 people have been treated with the drug since 2011. Indeed, improvements to survival were generally on the order of months, and around 20 percent of cases from these clinical trials showed no improvement compared to control groups. Due to regulations stemming from the United States embargo on Cuban goods, the drug has been unexplored in the United States until fairly recently. In late 2016, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York received approval to embark on a collaboration with Cuban researchers to bring CIMAvax clinical trials to the U.S., capping a lengthy process to get approval from the Obama Administration that began in 2011. In addition to Cuba, CIMAvax has been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. Michael Caligiuri of the American Association for Cancer Research told PBS Newshour that success in Cuba does not necessarily mean the drug will be met with similar success in the United States: Whenever there's an early evidence of efficacy in a single population, a single institution study, the chance that it will be replicated inter-institutionally is real, but not a given. The U.S. trials began in January 2017, and researchers are currently recruiting participants. If the drug's efficacy is demonstrated by the standards of the U.S. Food and Drug administration, Roswell Park Cancer Institute scientist Kevin Lee says it could potentially change the way in which doctors approach cancer treatment by targeting not the cancer itself, but by changing a body's ability to contain a cancer that it was previously unable to combat: There is an idea that's developing of converting cancer into a chronic disease. We give you a pill that you take every day, and it allows you to live a perfectly normal life. While the drug is real and has shown promise against a specific kind of lung cancer, claims that it is a blanket 'cure' for all of cancer overstate both the scope of the drug and the nature of its clinical success. Therefore, we rate that claim that Cuban researchers already have a cancer vaccine that has cured thousands of people as a mixture.

nan

Trump referred to white nationalist marchers as 'us' during a press conference.

Neutral

Following President Donald Trump's press conference on 15 August 2017, many observers initially believed that the president had referred to white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia three days earlier as 'us.' Critics of the speech cited a transcript published by the news web site Politico that initially read: Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us - excuse me - what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? But footage from the press conference shows that Trump's audio appears to cut out around the moment he refers the 'alt-left' (at about the 0:34 mark of the following video): Politico revised its transcript and added this correction: CORRECTION: An earlier version of this transcript quoted Trump as saying, 'Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us - excuse me.' In a review of the audio, we could not definitively discern Trump's exact words at that moment in the news conference. The transcript has been updated to now read: 'Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at [indiscernible] - excuse me.' A separate transcript released by CNBC also reflects the lack of clear audio at that moment in the press conference. Trump: OK. What about the alt-left that came charging at- [Indistinct.] Trump: Excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right. Do they have any semblance of guilt? [Cross talk. Reporters shout questions.] We contacted the White House press office, as well as CNN producer Elizabeth Landers and senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta - both of whom attended the press conference - seeking clarification, but have yet to receive a response.

nan

Trump referred to white nationalist marchers as 'us' during a press conference.

Neutral

Following President Donald Trump's press conference on 15 August 2017, many observers initially believed that the president had referred to white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia three days earlier as 'us.' Critics of the speech cited a transcript published by the news web site Politico that initially read: Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us - excuse me - what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? But footage from the press conference shows that Trump's audio appears to cut out around the moment he refers the 'alt-left' (at about the 0:34 mark of the following video): Politico revised its transcript and added this correction: CORRECTION: An earlier version of this transcript quoted Trump as saying, 'Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us - excuse me.' In a review of the audio, we could not definitively discern Trump's exact words at that moment in the news conference. The transcript has been updated to now read: 'Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at [indiscernible] - excuse me.' A separate transcript released by CNBC also reflects the lack of clear audio at that moment in the press conference. Trump: OK. What about the alt-left that came charging at- [Indistinct.] Trump: Excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right. Do they have any semblance of guilt? [Cross talk. Reporters shout questions.] We contacted the White House press office, as well as CNN producer Elizabeth Landers and senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta - both of whom attended the press conference - seeking clarification, but have yet to receive a response.

nan

Trump referred to white nationalist marchers as 'us' during a press conference.

Neutral

Following President Donald Trump's press conference on 15 August 2017, many observers initially believed that the president had referred to white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia three days earlier as 'us.' Critics of the speech cited a transcript published by the news web site Politico that initially read: Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us - excuse me - what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? But footage from the press conference shows that Trump's audio appears to cut out around the moment he refers the 'alt-left' (at about the 0:34 mark of the following video): Politico revised its transcript and added this correction: CORRECTION: An earlier version of this transcript quoted Trump as saying, 'Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us - excuse me.' In a review of the audio, we could not definitively discern Trump's exact words at that moment in the news conference. The transcript has been updated to now read: 'Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at [indiscernible] - excuse me.' A separate transcript released by CNBC also reflects the lack of clear audio at that moment in the press conference. Trump: OK. What about the alt-left that came charging at- [Indistinct.] Trump: Excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right. Do they have any semblance of guilt? [Cross talk. Reporters shout questions.] We contacted the White House press office, as well as CNN producer Elizabeth Landers and senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta - both of whom attended the press conference - seeking clarification, but have yet to receive a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

The Women's March on Washington is tallying attendees by asking them to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800.

Neutral

The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text 'COUNT ME' to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru - Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted: Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the 'text 89800' message: The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy: Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox - Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's '89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions' page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: Program Description The program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an 'inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth.' That organization began promoting the 'text 89800' initiative on 21 January 2017: Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers: @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers - we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts. - It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the 'text COUNT ME to 89800' message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response.

nan

Justice Anthony Kennedy suddenly resigned from the Supreme Court as part of a deal to shield his son from ongoing Russian investigations.

Neutral

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice - something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters - could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia - thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead - immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. 'Say hello to your boy,' Mr. Trump said. 'Special guy.' Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme - and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump weren't the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York - part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister - a critical chapter in the president's long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that 'can easily get confused and lumped together.' 'While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context,' she said. 'A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked.' Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, 'a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank.' 'The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business,' Ruhle continued. 'To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated.' The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. 'In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as 'a great man of outstanding accomplishment.' 'Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,' Mr. Trump said, 'Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.' There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: While the White House is focused on shepherding Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump - whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedy's son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy's other son, Gregory, and Trump's Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy's firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel's company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch's selection - he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss - as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trump's judicial-selection process stress that they're not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to 'assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's [current] term.' But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event.

nan

Justice Anthony Kennedy suddenly resigned from the Supreme Court as part of a deal to shield his son from ongoing Russian investigations.

Neutral

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice - something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters - could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia - thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead - immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. 'Say hello to your boy,' Mr. Trump said. 'Special guy.' Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme - and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump weren't the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York - part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister - a critical chapter in the president's long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that 'can easily get confused and lumped together.' 'While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context,' she said. 'A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked.' Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, 'a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank.' 'The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business,' Ruhle continued. 'To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated.' The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. 'In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as 'a great man of outstanding accomplishment.' 'Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,' Mr. Trump said, 'Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.' There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: While the White House is focused on shepherding Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump - whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedy's son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy's other son, Gregory, and Trump's Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy's firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel's company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch's selection - he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss - as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trump's judicial-selection process stress that they're not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to 'assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's [current] term.' But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event.

nan

Justice Anthony Kennedy suddenly resigned from the Supreme Court as part of a deal to shield his son from ongoing Russian investigations.

Neutral

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice - something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters - could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia - thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead - immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. 'Say hello to your boy,' Mr. Trump said. 'Special guy.' Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme - and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump weren't the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York - part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister - a critical chapter in the president's long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that 'can easily get confused and lumped together.' 'While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context,' she said. 'A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked.' Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, 'a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank.' 'The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business,' Ruhle continued. 'To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated.' The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. 'In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as 'a great man of outstanding accomplishment.' 'Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,' Mr. Trump said, 'Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.' There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: While the White House is focused on shepherding Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump - whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedy's son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy's other son, Gregory, and Trump's Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy's firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel's company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch's selection - he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss - as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trump's judicial-selection process stress that they're not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to 'assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's [current] term.' But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event.

nan

Justice Anthony Kennedy suddenly resigned from the Supreme Court as part of a deal to shield his son from ongoing Russian investigations.

Neutral

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice - something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters - could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia - thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead - immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. 'Say hello to your boy,' Mr. Trump said. 'Special guy.' Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme - and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump weren't the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York - part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister - a critical chapter in the president's long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that 'can easily get confused and lumped together.' 'While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context,' she said. 'A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked.' Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, 'a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank.' 'The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business,' Ruhle continued. 'To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated.' The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. 'In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as 'a great man of outstanding accomplishment.' 'Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,' Mr. Trump said, 'Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.' There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: While the White House is focused on shepherding Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump - whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedy's son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy's other son, Gregory, and Trump's Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy's firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel's company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch's selection - he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss - as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trump's judicial-selection process stress that they're not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to 'assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's [current] term.' But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event.

nan

Justice Anthony Kennedy suddenly resigned from the Supreme Court as part of a deal to shield his son from ongoing Russian investigations.

Neutral

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice - something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters - could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia - thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead - immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. 'Say hello to your boy,' Mr. Trump said. 'Special guy.' Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme - and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump weren't the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York - part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister - a critical chapter in the president's long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that 'can easily get confused and lumped together.' 'While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context,' she said. 'A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked.' Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, 'a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank.' 'The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business,' Ruhle continued. 'To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated.' The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. 'In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as 'a great man of outstanding accomplishment.' 'Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,' Mr. Trump said, 'Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.' There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: While the White House is focused on shepherding Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump - whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedy's son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy's other son, Gregory, and Trump's Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy's firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel's company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch's selection - he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss - as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trump's judicial-selection process stress that they're not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to 'assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's [current] term.' But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event.

nan

Justice Anthony Kennedy suddenly resigned from the Supreme Court as part of a deal to shield his son from ongoing Russian investigations.

Neutral

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice - something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters - could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia - thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead - immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. 'Say hello to your boy,' Mr. Trump said. 'Special guy.' Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme - and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump weren't the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York - part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister - a critical chapter in the president's long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that 'can easily get confused and lumped together.' 'While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context,' she said. 'A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked.' Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, 'a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank.' 'The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business,' Ruhle continued. 'To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated.' The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. 'In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as 'a great man of outstanding accomplishment.' 'Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,' Mr. Trump said, 'Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.' There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: While the White House is focused on shepherding Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump - whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedy's son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy's other son, Gregory, and Trump's Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy's firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel's company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch's selection - he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss - as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trump's judicial-selection process stress that they're not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to 'assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's [current] term.' But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

A half dozen Trump-related entities were under criminal investigation in December 2018.

Neutral

President Donald Trump and several of his associates faced mounting legal and political jeopardy in the final days and weeks of 2018. On 12 December, for example, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations related to his involvement in a scheme to pay 'hush money' to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen declared his willingness to fully cooperate with prosecutors in relation to other investigations, and he openly alleged that the president personally directed him to carry out the payments, telling the judge in his own case that he had spent years of his life covering up Trump's alleged 'dirty deeds.' The day after Cohen's sentencing, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported that the same federal prosecutors in New York had launched a criminal investigation into President Trump's inauguration committee, examining whether some of the non-profit committee's funds were improperly spent, as well as whether donors (including foreign donors) had been given or promised policy concessions or access to the incoming Trump administration in exchange for their contributions. Against this background, a popular tweet appeared to offer a startling summary of alleged crimes surrounding the 45th president. On 13 December, Judd Legum, founder of ThinkProgress web site, took to Twitter to note: Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation Entities under criminal investigation: 1. The Trump campaign 2. The Trump transition 3. The Trump inauguration 4. The Trump administration 5. The Trump Organization 6. The Trump Foundation https://t.co/DpDm64H6A5 - Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 13, 2018 That list was promulgated further when the activist group MoveOn posted a screenshot of Legum's tweet to Facebook: How many of these entries belong on a list of Trump-related entities under criminal investigation? 1. The Trump campaign TRUE Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a special counsel investigation into whether Russia directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the campaign of Donald Trump (or individuals associated with it) colluded with agents or representatives of the Russian state in that effort. According to the original order given by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, Mueller's probe was to be a continuation of an ongoing FBI investigation into the possibility of Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ... The order also specified that 'If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.' As a result, it is accurate to state that 'the Trump campaign' is under criminal investigation. 2. The Trump transition TRUE Just as Mueller's team has the authority to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump campaign associates and representatives that took place before the election on 8 November 2016, the special counsel has also been investigating the activities of Trump associates after election night and before Trump's inauguration on 21 January 2017 - that is, during the Trump transition. Most notably, prosecutors have secured a guilty plea from Michael Flynn in response to a charge of providing false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations took place in late December 2016, at the height of the transition period, and were not trivial in nature. After then-President Obama ordered economic sanctions against Russian entities in response to Russian-directed efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, Flynn (who was at the time a member of Trump's transition team) conveyed a message of conciliation to Kislyak. Flynn asked that the Russian government respond moderately to the sanctions. In November 2017, Mueller outlined Flynn's criminal offense of lying about those (and other) conversations, writing: The defendant, Michael T. Flynn, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C ... Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser in February 2017, after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his December 2016 phone conversations with Kislyak. In December 2018, Mueller recommended that Flynn be given a relatively lenient sentence for lying to the FBI, partly in acknowledgement of his guilty plea and what Mueller described as the 'substantial assistance' Flynn had since given to 'several ongoing investigations.' Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on 18 December 2018. 3. The Trump inauguration UNPROVEN This claim stems from the December 2018 news reports mentioned above, which alleged that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who conducted the successful prosecution of President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, had turned his attention to the president's inauguration committee. On 13 December, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said. Later the same day, the New York Times reported an additional angle to the criminal probe, raising the specter of potentially illegal foreign influence over the then-incoming Trump administration: Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations - including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds. Although these reports were published by two reputable news organizations, they do not contain concrete evidence to support their central claims, which are instead based on information provided by unnamed sources. This does not mean they are not accurate, but since we cannot examine any concrete evidence, the articles themselves are not sufficient for us to establish the veracity of the claims of a criminal investigation into Trump's inaugural committee. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to comment when asked whether they could confirm the claims contained in the Journal and Times reports. The White House did not respond to a similar request. 4. The Trump administration MIXTURE It's unclear how the Trump administration (i.e., the White House, cabinet, and government entities under President Donald Trump's purview) is facing criminal investigation. The 'administration' is a loose, collective term rather than a discrete legal entity and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution, although various government departments and agencies have been the subject of numerous civil and administrative lawsuits (as is typical for any government on the federal, state, or local level) including, for example, high-profile court challenges to the Trump administration's policies on immigration. It's also true that former and current figures within the Trump administration have faced, or may in the future face, criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, Michael Flynn briefly served as Trump's national security adviser before being charged and pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law who holds an administration position as senior adviser to the president, has been the subject of intense scrutiny for his participation in a June 2016 meeting often referred to as the 'Trump Tower' meeting. That meeting took place in Donald Trump Jr.'s Manhattan office, after an intermediary earlier offered the president's son 'official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.' The meeting was ultimately attended by Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, Paul Manafort, and four other Russian nationals. Federal campaign finance law prohibits campaigns or their representatives from soliciting or receiving anything 'of value' from foreign nationals or entities (which some experts have argued could be interpreted to include information, as well as financial contributions). It is possible that Kushner (and other attendees) could face criminal investigation or prosecution if Mueller or another prosecutor decides they have evidence that his attendance at the Trump Tower meeting constituted involvement in a conspiracy to solicit a 'thing of value' from the Russians in the context of his father-in-law's presidential campaign. Finally, President Trump himself, the senior figure in the Trump administration, could potentially face criminal investigation or prosecution emerging from the conviction of his lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to the payment of 'hush money' to the two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In pleading guilty in August 2018, Cohen said Trump had directed those payments, thereby implicating the president in a federal crime. In December 2018, New York prosecutors appeared to re-affirm that position, writing that: During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories - each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 - so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. It's also conceivable that President Trump could face criminal investigation or prosecution on charges of obstruction of justice stemming from his long-standing and repeated calls for the closing down of Mueller's Russia investigation. 5. The Trump Organization UNPROVEN This entry relates once again to the conviction of Cohen and the payment of 'hush money' to the two women mentioned above. In a December 2018 sentencing memo relating to Cohen's case, Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outlined the alleged involvement of the Trump Organization (referred to as 'The Company') in the scheme. The prosecutor alleged that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for paying $130,000 to one of the women (the porn actor Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels) and subsequently lied about it in their accounts: After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign-related 'tech services.' Executives of the Company [the Trump Organization] agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, 'grossing up' that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a 'retainer agreement.' The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as 'legal expenses.' In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not 'legal expenses' - Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 [Donald Trump] or the Company in 2017 - but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. This means that federal prosecutors in New York have publicly implicated 'executives' from the Trump Organization in the payment scheme that saw Cohen convicted of campaign finance violations, and they alleged that the Trump Organization lied in how they accounted for their reimbursement of Cohen. Those actions could well see the Trump Organization as an entity, or specific individuals who work for it, subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution, but as of 17 December 2018 no official confirmation of any such investigation had been issued. In particular, the potential role of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, has come under scrutiny. In August 2018, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources in a report that claimed Weisselberg was one of the 'executives' mentioned in court records relating to Cohen's trial, and that New York prosecutors had offered him immunity from prosecution in return for telling them what he allegedly knew about the 'hush money' scheme and the Trump Organization's alleged involvement in it. A spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York again declined to comment when asked to confirm whether such an investigation against Trump's company, or its employees, was under way. The Trump Organization did not respond to a similar request for comment. 6. The Trump Foundation UNPROVEN In June 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood brought a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the non-profit and its directors (Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump) of 'extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law': For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York state charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. Much of this alleged activity has been covered in detail since 2016 in a series of articles by the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. Underwood's lawsuit was a civil action, petitioning the New York Supreme Court to dissolve the Trump Foundation, bar Trump and his children from being directors of a non-profit organization for between one and 10 years, and order them to pay $2.8 million in restitution and fees and arrange for the distribution of the organization's remaining assets to other charities. Although the June 2018 lawsuit did not in itself constitute the opening of a criminal case against the Trump Foundation or the Trump family, Underwood alleged several violations of criminal law and referred the results of her investigation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has the authority to initiate a criminal investigation with a view to bringing charges. A month after Underwood announced her lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had followed up on the attorney general's actions, ordering New York tax authorities to open their own probe with the possibility of eventually bringing criminal charges against the Trump Foundation: The Donald J. Trump Foundation has been under criminal investigation in New York for more than a month for violating the state's tax laws. The Department of Taxation and Finance is taking the lead on the investigation, but other agencies may be involved, an aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) told Bloomberg. The aide, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said the investigation could lead to a criminal referral to the state attorney general or the Manhattan district attorney. No concrete evidence or official statement was offered to support that claim, something that does not mean it is inaccurate but does mean we cannot independently verify its accuracy. A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office told us that 'As a matter of policy we do not confirm criminal investigations.' Neither the IRS nor the New York State Office of Tax Enforcement responded to our inquiries as to whether either body had initiated a criminal investigation against the Trump Foundation or its directors. A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, who has in the past issued statements on behalf of the Trump Foundation, did not respond to our request for comment.

nan

The day after Thanksgiving in the United States, Black Friday, is the biggest shopping day of the year.

Neutral

The day after Thanksgiving is the day millions of Americans, enjoying a rare Friday off (and a dearth of football games on television), head for the malls to kick off the Christmas shopping season. 'Black Friday' (supposedly so named because it's the day when retailers turn the corner and see their income statements move out of the red and into the black, but originally the phrase was a derisive term applied by police and retail workers to the day's plethora of traffic jams and badly-behaved customers) is regularly cited as 'the busiest shopping day of the year.' But although Black Friday may be the day the greatest number of holiday shoppers traipse through malls, it isn't necessarily the biggest day of the year in terms of dollars spent: Popular belief has it that the Friday after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year. These days many shoppers buy with the holidays in mind all year long. Decorations go up around Halloween, and some Santa Clauses arrive at malls before Thanksgiving. Some shoppers get an early start Thursday at a limited number of stores like Kmart and Wal-Mart Super Centers, which are open on the holiday. To be sure, there are still intense crowds on the day after Thanksgiving - led by the 'doorbusters' who show up at dawn for early-bird sales. 'It's one of the busiest days in terms of traffic but not in sales,' said Pam Rucker, spokeswoman for the National Retail Federation. 'But the mystique is still there.' 'People just want to get out and do something on that day,' said Jay McIntosh, director of U.S. Retail and Consumer Products for accounting giant Ernst & Young. 'They do because of all of the incentives to shop, but many aren't buying.' Previous holiday shopping trends showed sales figures spiking on the day after Thanksgiving before suffering a sharp decline through the end of November. However, sales would steadily increase throughout December, peaking on the four days comprising the two weekends before Christmas. As a result, Black Friday sales almost always ranked below the last Saturday before Christmas (or December 23, if Christmas Day falls on a weekend). Up until 2002 it ranked between fourth and eighth on charts of the year's busiest shopping days. According to statistics published by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the top shopping days for the years 1993 through 2002 were: 2002: Saturday, Dec. 21 2001: Saturday, Dec. 22 2000: Saturday, Dec. 23 1999: Saturday, Dec. 18 1998: Saturday, Dec. 19 1997: Saturday, Dec. 20 1996: Saturday, Dec. 21 1995: Saturday, Dec. 23 1994: Friday, Dec. 23 1993: Thursday, Dec. 23 During that period, 'Black Friday' held the following positions in the ICSC's rankings of year's busiest shopping days: 2002: #4 2001: #6 2000: #5 1999: #8 1998: #8 1997: #7 1996: #5 1995: #7 1994: #8 1993: #8 Holiday shopping patterns changed in the following years as more shoppers began using on-line sales outlets for their holiday purchases. (Indeed, online retailers coined the term 'Cyber Monday' to describe the first weekday after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, a day on which their sales supposedly spike as shoppers pile onto the Internet to buy online whatever they couldn't or didn't get at the mall the previous weekend.) But times change. Since 2003 when this page was first published, marketing has become reality and 'Black Friday' has taken on greater prominence; analytics firm Shoppertrak ranked it the top predicted holiday shopping day in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The National Retail Federation also estimated that 115 million people will do their holiday shopping during 'Black Friday' in 2017. David Mikkelson

nan

A Puerto Rico police officer has revealed that San Juan's mayor is sabotaging relief efforts to reflect poorly on President Donald Trump.

Neutral

In late September 2017, as Puerto Rico struggled to address the damage from Hurricane Maria, mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto of the United States commonwealth's capital city, San Juan, spoke out about its worsening humanitarian crisis, which has been exacerbated by a sluggish federal response: Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto told the world of the 'horror' she was seeing as she waded through San Juan's flooded streets. And the desperation on the island, parts of which may remain without power for months. Until then, Cruz had not been a well-known politician outside the island. But after she criticized Washington's response to the hurricane this week - 'save us from dying,' she pleaded on cable network - President Trump took direct aim at her on Twitter. 'Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan,' he wrote Saturday. Democrats must have told her to say nasty things about him, he claimed. Immediately after this, rumors popped up about Cruz and her leadership (or lack thereof), up to and including a snippet from a Puerto Rico radio program purporting to be an interview with a police officer (but without any corroborating evidence or citations to support her claims; not even a name from the radio show caller claiming to be a police officer): On September 28th A cop from Puerto Rico was able to get a call through a Hispanic radio station in New York (La Mega). She is telling what she is seeing as a cop in the aftermath or Maria and the government's injustice Transcript: Radio Announcer: What is your name? Police Caller: I cannot give my name because I work for Puerto Rico's Police Department. I need to pass this information out because the stuff that is being brought from the U.S. is not being distributed. They are not allowing the Puerto Rican people to receive the donations. Radio Announcer: What part of Puerto Rico are you calling us from right now? Police Caller: I am right now in Guaynabo. Radio Announcer 2: Wow. Radio Announcer 3: But what information do you have? What have you seen? Police Caller: The Mayor, Carmen Yulin, is not allowing anyone to distribute... We need... what Puerto Ricans need is that the U.S. armed forces come in and distribute the aid. And that they stop the governor, Rosello, and the mayor, Yulin, on doing what they are doing... It's an abuse, it looks like communism, in our own island (sobbing)... (sobbing continues, inaudible translation due to cries)... Police Caller (cont.): People are helping us, but they are not accepting it, they are not accepting anymore help supposedly: 'they have to wait for the license, that there are no buses.' ...Let me tell you something Boricuas (Puerto Ricans) are dying of hunger (crying continues) ... This is a bureaucracy, everything has to be protocol, the lines are stretched. ...We can only give one box of water per person (sobbing continues). ...The medics here, people are dying, the hospitals are in crisis. Police Caller (cont.): I am embarrassed, as a Boricua to work for Puerto Rico's police and see that we cannot do anything. There are dozens and thousands and thousands of food and when people ask we cannot give anything away because [Mayor] Carmen Yulin says that we cannot take anything out; because everything is a soap opera, everything is a show and there have to be cameras here and there. ....Because you know they are just looking for votes for the upcoming years. Radio Announcer 2: Wow Police Caller: And the governor won't move unless there is a camera behind him; [Mayor] Carmen Yulin won't move unless there is a camera behind her. This is how we are living in Puerto Rico, meanwhile artists are giving money and the people of Florida are sending stuff, and I don't know how many more people are helping because we have very limited communication, very limited, and we have no idea what's going on outside; and the people who are sending stuff, they have to come in; they have to come to help Puerto Rico and distribute what is being wasted ...because what else are we going to do? You tell me, what are we going to do? Radio Announcer #2: Of course the desperation.. Radio Announcer #3: We are with our hearts broken listening to you describing this situation which is heartbreaking when we know that so many people are helping ...this is a police officer speaking. Police Caller: I've been for one hour and a half just trying to download an application because the phones that they give to us I cannot use them as a police officer due to security measures. But I need to speak for the people because the people are suffering. Because I, as a cop, and other partners are seeing it. A lot of people have been posting videos (sobbing - inaudible) ...and no-one is paying attention. Radio Announcer #3: We are truly sorry for this situation, we did not know that.. Police Caller: If Cuba and Venezuela want to help and we are grateful for that; and that the government denies their help, the government denies Cuba's help. ...That they reject Venezuela's help, ...Look for God's sake! Tell me how is that possible, we need help. Radio Announcer #3: We are going to send this message out so that it gets to where it needs to get to... Police Caller: We want the U.S. to come in, that the strongest forces come in and take the governor out, he is not doing anything, he is just going around and around, ...and everyone is like: 'oh, look how nice, the governor, he is going in the mud, he is going in the water', And where is it? Pardon the expression: WHERE IS THE FOOD? Police Caller (cont.): Look, grab the food, grab the sausage can and take it to the families! Stop the show! The governor is just doing a show, is all a show. There are many mayors that are suffering because they cannot do anything for their people. Radio Announcer #2: What are they doing with the food? Is it being kept in storage because they are not allowing to give it out? Police Caller: They are not doing anything, and they tell the harbors (ports) that they cannot bring stuff anymore. If the U.S. government doesn't get involved they will finish us. We are going to end up worse. ...Worse than Cuba, Africa, or worse than Haiti. We are living in an era that you don't want to see, people are desperate. The gasoline, people are already killing each other. Not to rob you, they are doing it so they can be the firsts to get food and take it to their families. Police Caller (cont.): Do you know what it is when a woman approaches me and tells me 'I don't have any more.' 'I don't know what else to give my kids because I don't have anymore.' 'Water and crackers'! Radio Announcer #1: Sweetie, thank you for calling us and using this medium to denounce this situation; and good thing that it was you who explained this so that people don't think that we are making up stuff; because this has nothing to do with politics. This is a very serious situation. Police Caller: Very Serious (sobbing continues) Audio/video cuts off Despite this lack of evidence, the rumors were immediately picked up and distributed as fact.

nan

A Puerto Rico police officer has revealed that San Juan's mayor is sabotaging relief efforts to reflect poorly on President Donald Trump.

Neutral

In late September 2017, as Puerto Rico struggled to address the damage from Hurricane Maria, mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto of the United States commonwealth's capital city, San Juan, spoke out about its worsening humanitarian crisis, which has been exacerbated by a sluggish federal response: Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto told the world of the 'horror' she was seeing as she waded through San Juan's flooded streets. And the desperation on the island, parts of which may remain without power for months. Until then, Cruz had not been a well-known politician outside the island. But after she criticized Washington's response to the hurricane this week - 'save us from dying,' she pleaded on cable network - President Trump took direct aim at her on Twitter. 'Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan,' he wrote Saturday. Democrats must have told her to say nasty things about him, he claimed. Immediately after this, rumors popped up about Cruz and her leadership (or lack thereof), up to and including a snippet from a Puerto Rico radio program purporting to be an interview with a police officer (but without any corroborating evidence or citations to support her claims; not even a name from the radio show caller claiming to be a police officer): On September 28th A cop from Puerto Rico was able to get a call through a Hispanic radio station in New York (La Mega). She is telling what she is seeing as a cop in the aftermath or Maria and the government's injustice Transcript: Radio Announcer: What is your name? Police Caller: I cannot give my name because I work for Puerto Rico's Police Department. I need to pass this information out because the stuff that is being brought from the U.S. is not being distributed. They are not allowing the Puerto Rican people to receive the donations. Radio Announcer: What part of Puerto Rico are you calling us from right now? Police Caller: I am right now in Guaynabo. Radio Announcer 2: Wow. Radio Announcer 3: But what information do you have? What have you seen? Police Caller: The Mayor, Carmen Yulin, is not allowing anyone to distribute... We need... what Puerto Ricans need is that the U.S. armed forces come in and distribute the aid. And that they stop the governor, Rosello, and the mayor, Yulin, on doing what they are doing... It's an abuse, it looks like communism, in our own island (sobbing)... (sobbing continues, inaudible translation due to cries)... Police Caller (cont.): People are helping us, but they are not accepting it, they are not accepting anymore help supposedly: 'they have to wait for the license, that there are no buses.' ...Let me tell you something Boricuas (Puerto Ricans) are dying of hunger (crying continues) ... This is a bureaucracy, everything has to be protocol, the lines are stretched. ...We can only give one box of water per person (sobbing continues). ...The medics here, people are dying, the hospitals are in crisis. Police Caller (cont.): I am embarrassed, as a Boricua to work for Puerto Rico's police and see that we cannot do anything. There are dozens and thousands and thousands of food and when people ask we cannot give anything away because [Mayor] Carmen Yulin says that we cannot take anything out; because everything is a soap opera, everything is a show and there have to be cameras here and there. ....Because you know they are just looking for votes for the upcoming years. Radio Announcer 2: Wow Police Caller: And the governor won't move unless there is a camera behind him; [Mayor] Carmen Yulin won't move unless there is a camera behind her. This is how we are living in Puerto Rico, meanwhile artists are giving money and the people of Florida are sending stuff, and I don't know how many more people are helping because we have very limited communication, very limited, and we have no idea what's going on outside; and the people who are sending stuff, they have to come in; they have to come to help Puerto Rico and distribute what is being wasted ...because what else are we going to do? You tell me, what are we going to do? Radio Announcer #2: Of course the desperation.. Radio Announcer #3: We are with our hearts broken listening to you describing this situation which is heartbreaking when we know that so many people are helping ...this is a police officer speaking. Police Caller: I've been for one hour and a half just trying to download an application because the phones that they give to us I cannot use them as a police officer due to security measures. But I need to speak for the people because the people are suffering. Because I, as a cop, and other partners are seeing it. A lot of people have been posting videos (sobbing - inaudible) ...and no-one is paying attention. Radio Announcer #3: We are truly sorry for this situation, we did not know that.. Police Caller: If Cuba and Venezuela want to help and we are grateful for that; and that the government denies their help, the government denies Cuba's help. ...That they reject Venezuela's help, ...Look for God's sake! Tell me how is that possible, we need help. Radio Announcer #3: We are going to send this message out so that it gets to where it needs to get to... Police Caller: We want the U.S. to come in, that the strongest forces come in and take the governor out, he is not doing anything, he is just going around and around, ...and everyone is like: 'oh, look how nice, the governor, he is going in the mud, he is going in the water', And where is it? Pardon the expression: WHERE IS THE FOOD? Police Caller (cont.): Look, grab the food, grab the sausage can and take it to the families! Stop the show! The governor is just doing a show, is all a show. There are many mayors that are suffering because they cannot do anything for their people. Radio Announcer #2: What are they doing with the food? Is it being kept in storage because they are not allowing to give it out? Police Caller: They are not doing anything, and they tell the harbors (ports) that they cannot bring stuff anymore. If the U.S. government doesn't get involved they will finish us. We are going to end up worse. ...Worse than Cuba, Africa, or worse than Haiti. We are living in an era that you don't want to see, people are desperate. The gasoline, people are already killing each other. Not to rob you, they are doing it so they can be the firsts to get food and take it to their families. Police Caller (cont.): Do you know what it is when a woman approaches me and tells me 'I don't have any more.' 'I don't know what else to give my kids because I don't have anymore.' 'Water and crackers'! Radio Announcer #1: Sweetie, thank you for calling us and using this medium to denounce this situation; and good thing that it was you who explained this so that people don't think that we are making up stuff; because this has nothing to do with politics. This is a very serious situation. Police Caller: Very Serious (sobbing continues) Audio/video cuts off Despite this lack of evidence, the rumors were immediately picked up and distributed as fact.

nan

A police officer told an African-American driver that weapons were drawn on him because 'you're not white.

Neutral

On 19 August 2018, social media users widely circulated a video taken with a cellphone that showed Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputies approaching, with guns draw, a stopped vehicle occupied by a driver and passenger who were both African-American. In the video, the driver could be seen putting his hands out the car window and yelling at police, 'Why you got your guns pointed at me, though?' Another voice off-camera promptly responded, 'Because you're not white.' The video blew up on social media, creating outrage over what viewers believed to be a display of open racism by police officers: However, according to acting Milwaukee County Sheriff Richard Schmidt, the person who made the comment was not one of the deputies, but rather an off-camera bystander. Schmidt hastily called a press conference the day the video circulated and announced that he had reviewed multiple recordings of the incident, including dashcam footage from the deputies' squad cars. He also said that had the statement been made by a deputy, he would have immediately suspended that person. Schmidt said not only was he confident that none of his deputies made the statement, but that one of them saw the person who did - a civilian bystander possibly occupying a green van: Every deputy involved in the incident, I specifically talked to myself, as well as having the supervisors interview them, as well as all the available video that we had from the public as well as those out of our squad cameras ... Deputy Boyd here who is on my left heard the statement that was made and that was in question on the videos that have frankly caused a great deal of unrest in the community already ... There were three deputies that were at this particular incident, and I'll go through it in just a moment. Deputy Boyd literally heard the statement that was being made, that these individuals would not have had guns pointed at them if they were not white. He identified the individual as being a white male who made the statement. He did have long facial hair and it's believed from another deputy in the room that this person was inside of a green van. Deputy Boyd did not see the particular vehicle but he looked over and saw the person, identified him as the person making that statement. A representative for the Sheriff's Department said she would send us footage from the squad cars' dashcams for review via postal mail. Schmidt said the reason the deputies had their weapons pointed at the car was because the driver had sped past them at 70 to 85 miles per hour in a 30 MPH zone and swerving into the right shoulder. Deputies pursued the vehicle, during which time the driver ran a red light, and when the car finally came to a stop, Schmidt said, the driver failed to follow orders to put the car in park and throw the keys out the window. In the end, Schmidt noted, no force was used as both the driver and passenger got out of the car on their own. The driver was issued citations for traffic-related infractions.

nan

Cesar Sayoc, the man accused of mailing bombs to prominent Democratic lawmakers and media organizations critical of President Trump, used to be a stripper and was 'long known to support Obama.

Neutral

On 27 October 2018, a Facebook account bearing the face of controversial 19th-century Canadian Prime Minister John H. Macdonald shared a post that alleged two facts about Cesar Sayoc, the accused perpetrator of several attempted mail bombings: that he used to work as a stripper, and that he 'was long known to support Obama' during that time: It is unclear what the author of this post meant to imply by combining the fact that Sayoc worked in strip clubs with the false assertion that he was an Obama supporter, but of the two claims raised, there is only support for the first. In the days following Sayoc's arrest, several media outlets attempted to profile the man who had covered his live-in van with Trump memes and sent what appeared to be pipe bombs to Trump's political and media opponents. These profiles describe a directionless individual who worked at strip clubs in various capacities throughout his life, but who only found a political awakening in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, when he became a supporter of President Trump. Was Cesar Sayoc a Stripper? Several individuals have stated that Cesar Sayoc has not only been employed at strip clubs, but worked as a stripper himself. Ohio event promoter Tony Valentine told the Washington Examiner that he 'hired Cesar Sayoc to strip on multiple occasions during the 1990s and that Sayoc, now 56, traveled the country for similar appearances.' 'He really couldn't find his niche in life, and I guess he found it now,' Valentine told the Washington Examiner. 'Back in the '90s, he was running around from Minnesota to the Carolinas to Florida. He was like a gypsy.' For two months in 2004, according to a profile in the New York Times, Sayoc was married to a woman who was also a stripper. That woman's mother told the Times that the two 'went on the circuit together' as 'dancers': He had a short-lived marriage to a woman identified in court papers as Roberta Altieri that ended in divorce in Oklahoma City in 2004, according to court records. Billie Mode, the mother of his ex-wife, said the couple worked in strip clubs and were married just two months. 'They were dancers,' Ms. Mode said. 'They went on the circuit together.' According to Valentine (the event promoter who had worked with Sayoc in the 1990s), he had heard that, as of about five years ago, Sayoc was working as an employee at a female strip club while performing on the side at an all-male strip club in Florida. More recently, he has appeared in posts on the Facebook page 'Chippen Fellas,' apparently run by Sayoc himself to promote his 'Hard Rock International Entertainment' brand. This page advertised all-male shows and in one instance included a dated picture of someone who appears to be Sayoc alongside more recent photos of younger men. It is unclear whether he ever performed with this group or merely served as a manager: According to the Times, Sayoc showed up to work as a DJ at a West Palm Beach strip club named Ultra the day before he was arrested. Did Sayoc Support Obama and Other Democrats In The Past? There is no evidence to support the claim that Sayoc, who sent a pipe bomb to the Obama family, ever supported President Obama. Sayoc registered to vote as a Republican in Florida on 4 March 2016, 'just ahead of the March 2016 Republican primary,' according to the Associated Press. Some have attempted to use doctored images from a MyLife.com background check to assert he was a registered Democrat, but this claim is not rooted in reality. A check of the official Florida voter registry indicates he is currently registered as a Republican. By all accounts, Sayoc lived a fairly apolitical life leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the Times that although Sayoc's family members were Democrats, Cesar himself 'seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case.' Lowy's recollection jibes with what a different lawyer, Daniel Lurvey (who represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014), remembers of the man's political leanings. He told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayoc's chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling: When they first met [over the 2002 bomb threat case], Mr. Lowy said, Mr. Sayoc brought in a scrapbook filled with notes and photographs he had collected from wrestlers, bodybuilders and strippers, table scraps from a world that he idolized. 'He comes across like a 15-year-old,' Mr. Lowy said. 'He has a total lack of maturity.' [...] He said that Mr. Trump's angry rhetoric and his appeals to the 'forgotten man and woman' during the 2016 campaign seemed to strike a deep chord with Mr. Sayoc, whose father had abandoned the family when he was a child. By 2015, it became clear that Sayoc was an outspoken and enthusiastic Trump supporter. That year, In what may have been an effort to make a false insurance claim, he reported to police that $45,000 worth of 'suits and costumes he needed for his business' were stolen from his van. According to the Times, that police report noted 'that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the president's clothing brand.' Sayoc also attended a Brevard College alumni event with members of his college soccer team that year, during which he 'quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories.' Two managers at a pizza shop where Sayoc worked in 2017 recall the man making racist remarks while explicitly attacking President Obama and praising President Trump: 'He loved Adolf Hitler; he talked about Adolf Hitler a lot,' said Debra Gureghian, 56, a manager at the Fort Lauderdale pizza shop where Mr. Sayoc worked for about a year in 2017. 'He would say, 'I like his politics, we should have more people like him.'' Mr. Sayoc went on paranoid, racist screeds, saying that blacks and Hispanics were taking over the world. He referred to Mr. Obama with a racist slur and said he was not a citizen. ... Teresa Palmer, 48, another manager, said that she also recalled [his pro-Trump-stickered white] van, and that Mr. Sayoc would say 'nasty things' about minorities. She remembered him mentioning Mr. Trump, but only recalled him saying that Mr. Trump made a 'great' president. During this time, Sayoc was an outspoken proponent of conservative conspiracy theories and pro-Trump memes, which he shared both on social media and the windows of his sticker-covered white van. There is no such support for the notion that he was pro-Obama, pro-Democrat, or even political at all prior to 2015.

nan

Cesar Sayoc, the man accused of mailing bombs to prominent Democratic lawmakers and media organizations critical of President Trump, used to be a stripper and was 'long known to support Obama.

Neutral

On 27 October 2018, a Facebook account bearing the face of controversial 19th-century Canadian Prime Minister John H. Macdonald shared a post that alleged two facts about Cesar Sayoc, the accused perpetrator of several attempted mail bombings: that he used to work as a stripper, and that he 'was long known to support Obama' during that time: It is unclear what the author of this post meant to imply by combining the fact that Sayoc worked in strip clubs with the false assertion that he was an Obama supporter, but of the two claims raised, there is only support for the first. In the days following Sayoc's arrest, several media outlets attempted to profile the man who had covered his live-in van with Trump memes and sent what appeared to be pipe bombs to Trump's political and media opponents. These profiles describe a directionless individual who worked at strip clubs in various capacities throughout his life, but who only found a political awakening in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, when he became a supporter of President Trump. Was Cesar Sayoc a Stripper? Several individuals have stated that Cesar Sayoc has not only been employed at strip clubs, but worked as a stripper himself. Ohio event promoter Tony Valentine told the Washington Examiner that he 'hired Cesar Sayoc to strip on multiple occasions during the 1990s and that Sayoc, now 56, traveled the country for similar appearances.' 'He really couldn't find his niche in life, and I guess he found it now,' Valentine told the Washington Examiner. 'Back in the '90s, he was running around from Minnesota to the Carolinas to Florida. He was like a gypsy.' For two months in 2004, according to a profile in the New York Times, Sayoc was married to a woman who was also a stripper. That woman's mother told the Times that the two 'went on the circuit together' as 'dancers': He had a short-lived marriage to a woman identified in court papers as Roberta Altieri that ended in divorce in Oklahoma City in 2004, according to court records. Billie Mode, the mother of his ex-wife, said the couple worked in strip clubs and were married just two months. 'They were dancers,' Ms. Mode said. 'They went on the circuit together.' According to Valentine (the event promoter who had worked with Sayoc in the 1990s), he had heard that, as of about five years ago, Sayoc was working as an employee at a female strip club while performing on the side at an all-male strip club in Florida. More recently, he has appeared in posts on the Facebook page 'Chippen Fellas,' apparently run by Sayoc himself to promote his 'Hard Rock International Entertainment' brand. This page advertised all-male shows and in one instance included a dated picture of someone who appears to be Sayoc alongside more recent photos of younger men. It is unclear whether he ever performed with this group or merely served as a manager: According to the Times, Sayoc showed up to work as a DJ at a West Palm Beach strip club named Ultra the day before he was arrested. Did Sayoc Support Obama and Other Democrats In The Past? There is no evidence to support the claim that Sayoc, who sent a pipe bomb to the Obama family, ever supported President Obama. Sayoc registered to vote as a Republican in Florida on 4 March 2016, 'just ahead of the March 2016 Republican primary,' according to the Associated Press. Some have attempted to use doctored images from a MyLife.com background check to assert he was a registered Democrat, but this claim is not rooted in reality. A check of the official Florida voter registry indicates he is currently registered as a Republican. By all accounts, Sayoc lived a fairly apolitical life leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the Times that although Sayoc's family members were Democrats, Cesar himself 'seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case.' Lowy's recollection jibes with what a different lawyer, Daniel Lurvey (who represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014), remembers of the man's political leanings. He told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayoc's chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling: When they first met [over the 2002 bomb threat case], Mr. Lowy said, Mr. Sayoc brought in a scrapbook filled with notes and photographs he had collected from wrestlers, bodybuilders and strippers, table scraps from a world that he idolized. 'He comes across like a 15-year-old,' Mr. Lowy said. 'He has a total lack of maturity.' [...] He said that Mr. Trump's angry rhetoric and his appeals to the 'forgotten man and woman' during the 2016 campaign seemed to strike a deep chord with Mr. Sayoc, whose father had abandoned the family when he was a child. By 2015, it became clear that Sayoc was an outspoken and enthusiastic Trump supporter. That year, In what may have been an effort to make a false insurance claim, he reported to police that $45,000 worth of 'suits and costumes he needed for his business' were stolen from his van. According to the Times, that police report noted 'that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the president's clothing brand.' Sayoc also attended a Brevard College alumni event with members of his college soccer team that year, during which he 'quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories.' Two managers at a pizza shop where Sayoc worked in 2017 recall the man making racist remarks while explicitly attacking President Obama and praising President Trump: 'He loved Adolf Hitler; he talked about Adolf Hitler a lot,' said Debra Gureghian, 56, a manager at the Fort Lauderdale pizza shop where Mr. Sayoc worked for about a year in 2017. 'He would say, 'I like his politics, we should have more people like him.'' Mr. Sayoc went on paranoid, racist screeds, saying that blacks and Hispanics were taking over the world. He referred to Mr. Obama with a racist slur and said he was not a citizen. ... Teresa Palmer, 48, another manager, said that she also recalled [his pro-Trump-stickered white] van, and that Mr. Sayoc would say 'nasty things' about minorities. She remembered him mentioning Mr. Trump, but only recalled him saying that Mr. Trump made a 'great' president. During this time, Sayoc was an outspoken proponent of conservative conspiracy theories and pro-Trump memes, which he shared both on social media and the windows of his sticker-covered white van. There is no such support for the notion that he was pro-Obama, pro-Democrat, or even political at all prior to 2015.

nan

Cesar Sayoc, the man accused of mailing bombs to prominent Democratic lawmakers and media organizations critical of President Trump, used to be a stripper and was 'long known to support Obama.

Neutral

On 27 October 2018, a Facebook account bearing the face of controversial 19th-century Canadian Prime Minister John H. Macdonald shared a post that alleged two facts about Cesar Sayoc, the accused perpetrator of several attempted mail bombings: that he used to work as a stripper, and that he 'was long known to support Obama' during that time: It is unclear what the author of this post meant to imply by combining the fact that Sayoc worked in strip clubs with the false assertion that he was an Obama supporter, but of the two claims raised, there is only support for the first. In the days following Sayoc's arrest, several media outlets attempted to profile the man who had covered his live-in van with Trump memes and sent what appeared to be pipe bombs to Trump's political and media opponents. These profiles describe a directionless individual who worked at strip clubs in various capacities throughout his life, but who only found a political awakening in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, when he became a supporter of President Trump. Was Cesar Sayoc a Stripper? Several individuals have stated that Cesar Sayoc has not only been employed at strip clubs, but worked as a stripper himself. Ohio event promoter Tony Valentine told the Washington Examiner that he 'hired Cesar Sayoc to strip on multiple occasions during the 1990s and that Sayoc, now 56, traveled the country for similar appearances.' 'He really couldn't find his niche in life, and I guess he found it now,' Valentine told the Washington Examiner. 'Back in the '90s, he was running around from Minnesota to the Carolinas to Florida. He was like a gypsy.' For two months in 2004, according to a profile in the New York Times, Sayoc was married to a woman who was also a stripper. That woman's mother told the Times that the two 'went on the circuit together' as 'dancers': He had a short-lived marriage to a woman identified in court papers as Roberta Altieri that ended in divorce in Oklahoma City in 2004, according to court records. Billie Mode, the mother of his ex-wife, said the couple worked in strip clubs and were married just two months. 'They were dancers,' Ms. Mode said. 'They went on the circuit together.' According to Valentine (the event promoter who had worked with Sayoc in the 1990s), he had heard that, as of about five years ago, Sayoc was working as an employee at a female strip club while performing on the side at an all-male strip club in Florida. More recently, he has appeared in posts on the Facebook page 'Chippen Fellas,' apparently run by Sayoc himself to promote his 'Hard Rock International Entertainment' brand. This page advertised all-male shows and in one instance included a dated picture of someone who appears to be Sayoc alongside more recent photos of younger men. It is unclear whether he ever performed with this group or merely served as a manager: According to the Times, Sayoc showed up to work as a DJ at a West Palm Beach strip club named Ultra the day before he was arrested. Did Sayoc Support Obama and Other Democrats In The Past? There is no evidence to support the claim that Sayoc, who sent a pipe bomb to the Obama family, ever supported President Obama. Sayoc registered to vote as a Republican in Florida on 4 March 2016, 'just ahead of the March 2016 Republican primary,' according to the Associated Press. Some have attempted to use doctored images from a MyLife.com background check to assert he was a registered Democrat, but this claim is not rooted in reality. A check of the official Florida voter registry indicates he is currently registered as a Republican. By all accounts, Sayoc lived a fairly apolitical life leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the Times that although Sayoc's family members were Democrats, Cesar himself 'seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case.' Lowy's recollection jibes with what a different lawyer, Daniel Lurvey (who represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014), remembers of the man's political leanings. He told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayoc's chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling: When they first met [over the 2002 bomb threat case], Mr. Lowy said, Mr. Sayoc brought in a scrapbook filled with notes and photographs he had collected from wrestlers, bodybuilders and strippers, table scraps from a world that he idolized. 'He comes across like a 15-year-old,' Mr. Lowy said. 'He has a total lack of maturity.' [...] He said that Mr. Trump's angry rhetoric and his appeals to the 'forgotten man and woman' during the 2016 campaign seemed to strike a deep chord with Mr. Sayoc, whose father had abandoned the family when he was a child. By 2015, it became clear that Sayoc was an outspoken and enthusiastic Trump supporter. That year, In what may have been an effort to make a false insurance claim, he reported to police that $45,000 worth of 'suits and costumes he needed for his business' were stolen from his van. According to the Times, that police report noted 'that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the president's clothing brand.' Sayoc also attended a Brevard College alumni event with members of his college soccer team that year, during which he 'quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories.' Two managers at a pizza shop where Sayoc worked in 2017 recall the man making racist remarks while explicitly attacking President Obama and praising President Trump: 'He loved Adolf Hitler; he talked about Adolf Hitler a lot,' said Debra Gureghian, 56, a manager at the Fort Lauderdale pizza shop where Mr. Sayoc worked for about a year in 2017. 'He would say, 'I like his politics, we should have more people like him.'' Mr. Sayoc went on paranoid, racist screeds, saying that blacks and Hispanics were taking over the world. He referred to Mr. Obama with a racist slur and said he was not a citizen. ... Teresa Palmer, 48, another manager, said that she also recalled [his pro-Trump-stickered white] van, and that Mr. Sayoc would say 'nasty things' about minorities. She remembered him mentioning Mr. Trump, but only recalled him saying that Mr. Trump made a 'great' president. During this time, Sayoc was an outspoken proponent of conservative conspiracy theories and pro-Trump memes, which he shared both on social media and the windows of his sticker-covered white van. There is no such support for the notion that he was pro-Obama, pro-Democrat, or even political at all prior to 2015.

nan

Cesar Sayoc, the man accused of mailing bombs to prominent Democratic lawmakers and media organizations critical of President Trump, used to be a stripper and was 'long known to support Obama.

Neutral

On 27 October 2018, a Facebook account bearing the face of controversial 19th-century Canadian Prime Minister John H. Macdonald shared a post that alleged two facts about Cesar Sayoc, the accused perpetrator of several attempted mail bombings: that he used to work as a stripper, and that he 'was long known to support Obama' during that time: It is unclear what the author of this post meant to imply by combining the fact that Sayoc worked in strip clubs with the false assertion that he was an Obama supporter, but of the two claims raised, there is only support for the first. In the days following Sayoc's arrest, several media outlets attempted to profile the man who had covered his live-in van with Trump memes and sent what appeared to be pipe bombs to Trump's political and media opponents. These profiles describe a directionless individual who worked at strip clubs in various capacities throughout his life, but who only found a political awakening in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, when he became a supporter of President Trump. Was Cesar Sayoc a Stripper? Several individuals have stated that Cesar Sayoc has not only been employed at strip clubs, but worked as a stripper himself. Ohio event promoter Tony Valentine told the Washington Examiner that he 'hired Cesar Sayoc to strip on multiple occasions during the 1990s and that Sayoc, now 56, traveled the country for similar appearances.' 'He really couldn't find his niche in life, and I guess he found it now,' Valentine told the Washington Examiner. 'Back in the '90s, he was running around from Minnesota to the Carolinas to Florida. He was like a gypsy.' For two months in 2004, according to a profile in the New York Times, Sayoc was married to a woman who was also a stripper. That woman's mother told the Times that the two 'went on the circuit together' as 'dancers': He had a short-lived marriage to a woman identified in court papers as Roberta Altieri that ended in divorce in Oklahoma City in 2004, according to court records. Billie Mode, the mother of his ex-wife, said the couple worked in strip clubs and were married just two months. 'They were dancers,' Ms. Mode said. 'They went on the circuit together.' According to Valentine (the event promoter who had worked with Sayoc in the 1990s), he had heard that, as of about five years ago, Sayoc was working as an employee at a female strip club while performing on the side at an all-male strip club in Florida. More recently, he has appeared in posts on the Facebook page 'Chippen Fellas,' apparently run by Sayoc himself to promote his 'Hard Rock International Entertainment' brand. This page advertised all-male shows and in one instance included a dated picture of someone who appears to be Sayoc alongside more recent photos of younger men. It is unclear whether he ever performed with this group or merely served as a manager: According to the Times, Sayoc showed up to work as a DJ at a West Palm Beach strip club named Ultra the day before he was arrested. Did Sayoc Support Obama and Other Democrats In The Past? There is no evidence to support the claim that Sayoc, who sent a pipe bomb to the Obama family, ever supported President Obama. Sayoc registered to vote as a Republican in Florida on 4 March 2016, 'just ahead of the March 2016 Republican primary,' according to the Associated Press. Some have attempted to use doctored images from a MyLife.com background check to assert he was a registered Democrat, but this claim is not rooted in reality. A check of the official Florida voter registry indicates he is currently registered as a Republican. By all accounts, Sayoc lived a fairly apolitical life leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the Times that although Sayoc's family members were Democrats, Cesar himself 'seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case.' Lowy's recollection jibes with what a different lawyer, Daniel Lurvey (who represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014), remembers of the man's political leanings. He told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayoc's chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling: When they first met [over the 2002 bomb threat case], Mr. Lowy said, Mr. Sayoc brought in a scrapbook filled with notes and photographs he had collected from wrestlers, bodybuilders and strippers, table scraps from a world that he idolized. 'He comes across like a 15-year-old,' Mr. Lowy said. 'He has a total lack of maturity.' [...] He said that Mr. Trump's angry rhetoric and his appeals to the 'forgotten man and woman' during the 2016 campaign seemed to strike a deep chord with Mr. Sayoc, whose father had abandoned the family when he was a child. By 2015, it became clear that Sayoc was an outspoken and enthusiastic Trump supporter. That year, In what may have been an effort to make a false insurance claim, he reported to police that $45,000 worth of 'suits and costumes he needed for his business' were stolen from his van. According to the Times, that police report noted 'that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the president's clothing brand.' Sayoc also attended a Brevard College alumni event with members of his college soccer team that year, during which he 'quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories.' Two managers at a pizza shop where Sayoc worked in 2017 recall the man making racist remarks while explicitly attacking President Obama and praising President Trump: 'He loved Adolf Hitler; he talked about Adolf Hitler a lot,' said Debra Gureghian, 56, a manager at the Fort Lauderdale pizza shop where Mr. Sayoc worked for about a year in 2017. 'He would say, 'I like his politics, we should have more people like him.'' Mr. Sayoc went on paranoid, racist screeds, saying that blacks and Hispanics were taking over the world. He referred to Mr. Obama with a racist slur and said he was not a citizen. ... Teresa Palmer, 48, another manager, said that she also recalled [his pro-Trump-stickered white] van, and that Mr. Sayoc would say 'nasty things' about minorities. She remembered him mentioning Mr. Trump, but only recalled him saying that Mr. Trump made a 'great' president. During this time, Sayoc was an outspoken proponent of conservative conspiracy theories and pro-Trump memes, which he shared both on social media and the windows of his sticker-covered white van. There is no such support for the notion that he was pro-Obama, pro-Democrat, or even political at all prior to 2015.

nan

In August 2017, Richard Robert Rawling was indicted for 'skewing vote tallies' in favor of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates during the March 2016 primaries.

Neutral

On 22 August 2017, the left-leaning web site Raw Progressive reported that an elections official in North Carolina had been indicted for 'rigging' the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.: A former elections worker in North Carolina was indicted by a grand jury on Monday for purposefully changing ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, was charged with felony counts of failing his duties and obstruction of justice after allegedly skewing the vote tallies to help elect President Trump and other conservative candidates. The article accurately reports that Richard Robert Rawling has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice for his alleged actions during the March 2016 primary elections. However, Raw Progressive also incorrectly claims that Rawling is accused of having 'skewed' the election outcome in favor of Trump (and other Republican candidates). The indictment was announced in a press release on 21 August 2017 by North Carolina's Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, which was known until recently as simply the State Board of Elections: A Durham County grand jury on Monday [21 August] indicted a former Durham County elections worker on charges related to the mishandling of provisional ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. The grand jury returned indictments against Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, on counts of obstruction of justice, a felony, and failure to discharge a duty of his office, a misdemeanor. The Board of Elections noted, however, that the purported action had no effect on the outcome of any election, and did not appear intended to favor any particular candidate or party: Investigators from the...Bipartisan State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement found that irregularities resulting from Rawling's actions were not sufficient in number to affect any contest outcomes. It also found no evidence that Rawling altered ballot counts to support a particular political party or candidate. What Rawling is accused of, and will now stand trial for, is far less grandiose than 'rigging the 2016 election for Donald Trump': ...The investigation determined that Rawling ran or ordered subordinates to run provisional ballots through tabulators more than once and made manual changes to the ballot count so the results of the provisional canvass would match the number of approved provisional ballots. That was done, the investigation found, to avoid having to report to the Durham County Board of Elections a discrepancy in the number of provisional ballots in possession of the Board of Elections and the number counted on canvass day. Provisional ballots are used when there is uncertainty at the polling place about whether a voter is eligible to vote, for example, or if a voter casts their ballot at the wrong location. They are not supposed to be counted at the polling place, but instead are supposed to be brought to the local county board of elections, which then decides whether they should be counted. Rawling is accused of having repeatedly run provisional paper ballots through electronic vote tabulators (which using scanning technology to recognize marks made on ballots by voters), which he was not supposed to do. He is accused of then having manually altered the total number of provisional ballots in order to erase a discrepancy between the number of provisional ballots counted on Election Day and the number of provisional ballots approved for counting by the state Board of Elections. Rawling - who resigned from his position in the Durham County Board of Elections in March 2016 - is accused of having mishandled and altered ballot totals and is charged with obstruction of justice, a felony. However, based on the statement released by the state Board of Elections, he is accused of what essentially appears to be improperly avoiding an administrative headache for himself rather than attempting to 'rig' a national election.

nan

In August 2017, Richard Robert Rawling was indicted for 'skewing vote tallies' in favor of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates during the March 2016 primaries.

Neutral

On 22 August 2017, the left-leaning web site Raw Progressive reported that an elections official in North Carolina had been indicted for 'rigging' the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.: A former elections worker in North Carolina was indicted by a grand jury on Monday for purposefully changing ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, was charged with felony counts of failing his duties and obstruction of justice after allegedly skewing the vote tallies to help elect President Trump and other conservative candidates. The article accurately reports that Richard Robert Rawling has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice for his alleged actions during the March 2016 primary elections. However, Raw Progressive also incorrectly claims that Rawling is accused of having 'skewed' the election outcome in favor of Trump (and other Republican candidates). The indictment was announced in a press release on 21 August 2017 by North Carolina's Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, which was known until recently as simply the State Board of Elections: A Durham County grand jury on Monday [21 August] indicted a former Durham County elections worker on charges related to the mishandling of provisional ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. The grand jury returned indictments against Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, on counts of obstruction of justice, a felony, and failure to discharge a duty of his office, a misdemeanor. The Board of Elections noted, however, that the purported action had no effect on the outcome of any election, and did not appear intended to favor any particular candidate or party: Investigators from the...Bipartisan State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement found that irregularities resulting from Rawling's actions were not sufficient in number to affect any contest outcomes. It also found no evidence that Rawling altered ballot counts to support a particular political party or candidate. What Rawling is accused of, and will now stand trial for, is far less grandiose than 'rigging the 2016 election for Donald Trump': ...The investigation determined that Rawling ran or ordered subordinates to run provisional ballots through tabulators more than once and made manual changes to the ballot count so the results of the provisional canvass would match the number of approved provisional ballots. That was done, the investigation found, to avoid having to report to the Durham County Board of Elections a discrepancy in the number of provisional ballots in possession of the Board of Elections and the number counted on canvass day. Provisional ballots are used when there is uncertainty at the polling place about whether a voter is eligible to vote, for example, or if a voter casts their ballot at the wrong location. They are not supposed to be counted at the polling place, but instead are supposed to be brought to the local county board of elections, which then decides whether they should be counted. Rawling is accused of having repeatedly run provisional paper ballots through electronic vote tabulators (which using scanning technology to recognize marks made on ballots by voters), which he was not supposed to do. He is accused of then having manually altered the total number of provisional ballots in order to erase a discrepancy between the number of provisional ballots counted on Election Day and the number of provisional ballots approved for counting by the state Board of Elections. Rawling - who resigned from his position in the Durham County Board of Elections in March 2016 - is accused of having mishandled and altered ballot totals and is charged with obstruction of justice, a felony. However, based on the statement released by the state Board of Elections, he is accused of what essentially appears to be improperly avoiding an administrative headache for himself rather than attempting to 'rig' a national election.

nan

In August 2017, Richard Robert Rawling was indicted for 'skewing vote tallies' in favor of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates during the March 2016 primaries.

Neutral

On 22 August 2017, the left-leaning web site Raw Progressive reported that an elections official in North Carolina had been indicted for 'rigging' the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.: A former elections worker in North Carolina was indicted by a grand jury on Monday for purposefully changing ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, was charged with felony counts of failing his duties and obstruction of justice after allegedly skewing the vote tallies to help elect President Trump and other conservative candidates. The article accurately reports that Richard Robert Rawling has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice for his alleged actions during the March 2016 primary elections. However, Raw Progressive also incorrectly claims that Rawling is accused of having 'skewed' the election outcome in favor of Trump (and other Republican candidates). The indictment was announced in a press release on 21 August 2017 by North Carolina's Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, which was known until recently as simply the State Board of Elections: A Durham County grand jury on Monday [21 August] indicted a former Durham County elections worker on charges related to the mishandling of provisional ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. The grand jury returned indictments against Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, on counts of obstruction of justice, a felony, and failure to discharge a duty of his office, a misdemeanor. The Board of Elections noted, however, that the purported action had no effect on the outcome of any election, and did not appear intended to favor any particular candidate or party: Investigators from the...Bipartisan State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement found that irregularities resulting from Rawling's actions were not sufficient in number to affect any contest outcomes. It also found no evidence that Rawling altered ballot counts to support a particular political party or candidate. What Rawling is accused of, and will now stand trial for, is far less grandiose than 'rigging the 2016 election for Donald Trump': ...The investigation determined that Rawling ran or ordered subordinates to run provisional ballots through tabulators more than once and made manual changes to the ballot count so the results of the provisional canvass would match the number of approved provisional ballots. That was done, the investigation found, to avoid having to report to the Durham County Board of Elections a discrepancy in the number of provisional ballots in possession of the Board of Elections and the number counted on canvass day. Provisional ballots are used when there is uncertainty at the polling place about whether a voter is eligible to vote, for example, or if a voter casts their ballot at the wrong location. They are not supposed to be counted at the polling place, but instead are supposed to be brought to the local county board of elections, which then decides whether they should be counted. Rawling is accused of having repeatedly run provisional paper ballots through electronic vote tabulators (which using scanning technology to recognize marks made on ballots by voters), which he was not supposed to do. He is accused of then having manually altered the total number of provisional ballots in order to erase a discrepancy between the number of provisional ballots counted on Election Day and the number of provisional ballots approved for counting by the state Board of Elections. Rawling - who resigned from his position in the Durham County Board of Elections in March 2016 - is accused of having mishandled and altered ballot totals and is charged with obstruction of justice, a felony. However, based on the statement released by the state Board of Elections, he is accused of what essentially appears to be improperly avoiding an administrative headache for himself rather than attempting to 'rig' a national election.

nan

In August 2017, Richard Robert Rawling was indicted for 'skewing vote tallies' in favor of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates during the March 2016 primaries.

Neutral

On 22 August 2017, the left-leaning web site Raw Progressive reported that an elections official in North Carolina had been indicted for 'rigging' the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.: A former elections worker in North Carolina was indicted by a grand jury on Monday for purposefully changing ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, was charged with felony counts of failing his duties and obstruction of justice after allegedly skewing the vote tallies to help elect President Trump and other conservative candidates. The article accurately reports that Richard Robert Rawling has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice for his alleged actions during the March 2016 primary elections. However, Raw Progressive also incorrectly claims that Rawling is accused of having 'skewed' the election outcome in favor of Trump (and other Republican candidates). The indictment was announced in a press release on 21 August 2017 by North Carolina's Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, which was known until recently as simply the State Board of Elections: A Durham County grand jury on Monday [21 August] indicted a former Durham County elections worker on charges related to the mishandling of provisional ballot results during the March 2016 primary election. The grand jury returned indictments against Richard Robert Rawling, 59, of Cary, on counts of obstruction of justice, a felony, and failure to discharge a duty of his office, a misdemeanor. The Board of Elections noted, however, that the purported action had no effect on the outcome of any election, and did not appear intended to favor any particular candidate or party: Investigators from the...Bipartisan State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement found that irregularities resulting from Rawling's actions were not sufficient in number to affect any contest outcomes. It also found no evidence that Rawling altered ballot counts to support a particular political party or candidate. What Rawling is accused of, and will now stand trial for, is far less grandiose than 'rigging the 2016 election for Donald Trump': ...The investigation determined that Rawling ran or ordered subordinates to run provisional ballots through tabulators more than once and made manual changes to the ballot count so the results of the provisional canvass would match the number of approved provisional ballots. That was done, the investigation found, to avoid having to report to the Durham County Board of Elections a discrepancy in the number of provisional ballots in possession of the Board of Elections and the number counted on canvass day. Provisional ballots are used when there is uncertainty at the polling place about whether a voter is eligible to vote, for example, or if a voter casts their ballot at the wrong location. They are not supposed to be counted at the polling place, but instead are supposed to be brought to the local county board of elections, which then decides whether they should be counted. Rawling is accused of having repeatedly run provisional paper ballots through electronic vote tabulators (which using scanning technology to recognize marks made on ballots by voters), which he was not supposed to do. He is accused of then having manually altered the total number of provisional ballots in order to erase a discrepancy between the number of provisional ballots counted on Election Day and the number of provisional ballots approved for counting by the state Board of Elections. Rawling - who resigned from his position in the Durham County Board of Elections in March 2016 - is accused of having mishandled and altered ballot totals and is charged with obstruction of justice, a felony. However, based on the statement released by the state Board of Elections, he is accused of what essentially appears to be improperly avoiding an administrative headache for himself rather than attempting to 'rig' a national election.

nan

The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department was put under scrutiny for posting a photograph of a deputy praying before his shift.

Neutral

In May 2018, a Twitter user shared a photograph showing a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy praying before his shift, along with text suggesting that the department's posting of the picture had brought 'scrutiny' upon them: This picture is indeed a photograph of a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy kneeling in prayer. But although a handful of social media users posted comments in response to its posting that invoked concerns about the separation of church and state, the overwhelming majority of users expressed positive comments that did not result in any additional 'scrutiny' being brought upon the department. This photograph was originally posted to the social media pages of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department and the SBSD's Yucaipa Police Station on 1 May 2018. The Yucaipa Police post included a message stating that the photograph captured Deputy Wedge praying for the safety of his partner and the community: This picture is now often shared as if it became the center of a raging controversy, but in fact the majority of comments posted on the social media pages of these law enforcement agencies were positive. The San Bernardino Sheriff's Department even published a response on Facebook thanking the community for their support: Lt. Porter of the Yucaipa Police Station also responded to one Facebook user who was curious about the 'controversy' surrounding this image. Porter explained that the photograph had originally been accompanied by a Bible verse and that a few people had posted comments referencing separation of church and state issues. However, Porter also noted that the overall response to the image had been 'overwhelmingly positive and supportive': Examining the edit history of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's post reveals that it was originally posted in conjunction with the Bible verse 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God' - Matthew 5:9.' (This verse was later removed when the post was edited.) We were able to find only a handful of vaguely critical messages out of the 2,000-some-odd comments posted in response to this photograph on the two aforementioned Facebook pages. These comments tended to focus more on separation of church and state issues (particularly the use of a Bible verse) and less on criticism of religion, the deputy, or his employer: In general, the majority of users voiced support for the officer, a handful expressed sentiments similar to the one displayed just above, and the rest complained about how this photograph shouldn't really be controversial. Cynthia Bachman, the Public Information Officer of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, told us in an email that there were 'many comments regarding the separation of church and state.' And while Bachman said that 'scrutiny' might be an appropriate word for the situation, she added that this controversy didn't warrant any changes to the department's social media policies: When this was originally posted it included the bible verse Matthew 5;9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. This is a common verse used in law enforcement. I guess 'scrutiny' is accurate, as I'm told this post went viral. There were many comments regarding the separation of church and state and the verse was removed from the post, but the photo remained. I was told my our social media team that the positive/negative comments were split. It wasn't necessary to change any of our social media policies due to this post.Recent Updates Updated [13 August 2018]: Added statement from Public Information Officer of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

nan

The Republican tax reform plan would increase the tax burden on graduate students by counting waived tuition as personal income.

Neutral

Amid ongoing debate surrounding the Republican tax reform plan, one provision has stirred concerns in higher education. On 8 November 2017, Wired wrote about the 'devastating impact the GOP's recently unveiled tax-reform plan could have on...PhD candidates.' Buried in that plan is a proposed repeal that would cause graduate students' tuition waivers to be counted as income-making them subject to taxes. We received several enquiries about whether the GOP tax plan would have this effect. The answer is: Yes and no. The version of the tax bill passed by the House of Representatives would tax the graduate tuition waivers, but the Senate version of the bill does not, leaving free tuition exempt from taxation. Currently, U.S. law states that individuals do not have to count as taxable income any tuition write-offs they might receive from an educational institution. For example, graduate students (M.A. and PhD students) often teach and perform research, in return for free tuition. Section 117(d) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code states: d)Qualified tuition reduction (1)In general Gross income shall not include any qualified tuition reduction. (2)Qualified tuition reduction. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualified tuition reduction' means the amount of any reduction in tuition provided to an employee of an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) for the education (below the graduate level) at such organization (or another organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)) of-(A) such employee, or (B) any person treated as an employee (or whose use is treated as an employee use) under the rules of section 132(h). As you may have noticed, this provision applies to tuition 'below the graduate level' (i.e. undergraduate tuition.) However, the statute goes on to stipulate that tuition write-offs for graduate students are also included in the exemption: (5) Special rules for teaching and research assistants In the case of the education of an individual who is a graduate student at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and who is engaged in teaching or research activities for such organization, paragraph (2) shall be applied as if it did not contain the phrase '(below the graduate level)'. The House of Representatives version of the Republican tax plan (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) would remove Section 117(d) from the Internal Revenue Code, thus getting rid of the graduate student tuition waiver exemption. Section 1204 (e) of the bill states: (1) Section 117(c)(1) is amended- (A) by striking ''subsections (a) and (d)''... The deletion of Section 117(d) means that the amount of tuition a student would otherwise pay but doesn't, because they receive tuition reduction in return for work, research or teaching, would in future be added to their gross income, and therefore be eligible for taxation. Under the House version of the bill, if this provision is adopted by Senate, this would kick in on 1 January 2018. In these circumstances, a graduate student's actual income would be vastly lower than what is considered their income for tax purposes. In many cases this would move them into a higher tax bracket, exponentially increasing what they owe in income tax, and therefore leaving them significantly less well off. As Wired reported, the Graduate Student Assembly at Carnegie Mellon University has published an analysis of the implications for its graduate students. According to its calculations, a notional graduate student in the school of computer science, for example, would go from paying $2,834 in tax on a $32,400 stipend (salary) to paying $10,209 in tax. That's an almost four-fold increase in their income tax burden, without any increase in their stipend. It is absolutely true to report, as Wired, BuzzFeed, the Chronicle of Higher Education and others did, that the House of Representatives version of the Republican tax plan would have this effect on tuition waivers for graduate students. However, that's only one of two versions of the plan. The Senate Republican plan (including the most recent iteration from 15 November 2017) does not remove the existing tax exemptions for graduate tuition reduction. As the two bodies come to a compromise on a finalized version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it remains to be seen whether tuition waivers will continue to be exempt from taxation, or House Republicans insist on pushing through this change. On 2 December, the Senate passed an updated version of the bill that did not contain any reference to Section 117 of the existing tax code. Senators appear to have dropped the plan to count graduate tuition waivers as taxable income. Recent Updates Updated [5 December 2017]: Added information about the version of the tax bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

nan

The Republican tax reform plan would increase the tax burden on graduate students by counting waived tuition as personal income.

Neutral

Amid ongoing debate surrounding the Republican tax reform plan, one provision has stirred concerns in higher education. On 8 November 2017, Wired wrote about the 'devastating impact the GOP's recently unveiled tax-reform plan could have on...PhD candidates.' Buried in that plan is a proposed repeal that would cause graduate students' tuition waivers to be counted as income-making them subject to taxes. We received several enquiries about whether the GOP tax plan would have this effect. The answer is: Yes and no. The version of the tax bill passed by the House of Representatives would tax the graduate tuition waivers, but the Senate version of the bill does not, leaving free tuition exempt from taxation. Currently, U.S. law states that individuals do not have to count as taxable income any tuition write-offs they might receive from an educational institution. For example, graduate students (M.A. and PhD students) often teach and perform research, in return for free tuition. Section 117(d) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code states: d)Qualified tuition reduction (1)In general Gross income shall not include any qualified tuition reduction. (2)Qualified tuition reduction. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualified tuition reduction' means the amount of any reduction in tuition provided to an employee of an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) for the education (below the graduate level) at such organization (or another organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)) of-(A) such employee, or (B) any person treated as an employee (or whose use is treated as an employee use) under the rules of section 132(h). As you may have noticed, this provision applies to tuition 'below the graduate level' (i.e. undergraduate tuition.) However, the statute goes on to stipulate that tuition write-offs for graduate students are also included in the exemption: (5) Special rules for teaching and research assistants In the case of the education of an individual who is a graduate student at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and who is engaged in teaching or research activities for such organization, paragraph (2) shall be applied as if it did not contain the phrase '(below the graduate level)'. The House of Representatives version of the Republican tax plan (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) would remove Section 117(d) from the Internal Revenue Code, thus getting rid of the graduate student tuition waiver exemption. Section 1204 (e) of the bill states: (1) Section 117(c)(1) is amended- (A) by striking ''subsections (a) and (d)''... The deletion of Section 117(d) means that the amount of tuition a student would otherwise pay but doesn't, because they receive tuition reduction in return for work, research or teaching, would in future be added to their gross income, and therefore be eligible for taxation. Under the House version of the bill, if this provision is adopted by Senate, this would kick in on 1 January 2018. In these circumstances, a graduate student's actual income would be vastly lower than what is considered their income for tax purposes. In many cases this would move them into a higher tax bracket, exponentially increasing what they owe in income tax, and therefore leaving them significantly less well off. As Wired reported, the Graduate Student Assembly at Carnegie Mellon University has published an analysis of the implications for its graduate students. According to its calculations, a notional graduate student in the school of computer science, for example, would go from paying $2,834 in tax on a $32,400 stipend (salary) to paying $10,209 in tax. That's an almost four-fold increase in their income tax burden, without any increase in their stipend. It is absolutely true to report, as Wired, BuzzFeed, the Chronicle of Higher Education and others did, that the House of Representatives version of the Republican tax plan would have this effect on tuition waivers for graduate students. However, that's only one of two versions of the plan. The Senate Republican plan (including the most recent iteration from 15 November 2017) does not remove the existing tax exemptions for graduate tuition reduction. As the two bodies come to a compromise on a finalized version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it remains to be seen whether tuition waivers will continue to be exempt from taxation, or House Republicans insist on pushing through this change. On 2 December, the Senate passed an updated version of the bill that did not contain any reference to Section 117 of the existing tax code. Senators appear to have dropped the plan to count graduate tuition waivers as taxable income. Recent Updates Updated [5 December 2017]: Added information about the version of the tax bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

nan

The Republican tax reform plan would increase the tax burden on graduate students by counting waived tuition as personal income.

Neutral

Amid ongoing debate surrounding the Republican tax reform plan, one provision has stirred concerns in higher education. On 8 November 2017, Wired wrote about the 'devastating impact the GOP's recently unveiled tax-reform plan could have on...PhD candidates.' Buried in that plan is a proposed repeal that would cause graduate students' tuition waivers to be counted as income-making them subject to taxes. We received several enquiries about whether the GOP tax plan would have this effect. The answer is: Yes and no. The version of the tax bill passed by the House of Representatives would tax the graduate tuition waivers, but the Senate version of the bill does not, leaving free tuition exempt from taxation. Currently, U.S. law states that individuals do not have to count as taxable income any tuition write-offs they might receive from an educational institution. For example, graduate students (M.A. and PhD students) often teach and perform research, in return for free tuition. Section 117(d) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code states: d)Qualified tuition reduction (1)In general Gross income shall not include any qualified tuition reduction. (2)Qualified tuition reduction. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualified tuition reduction' means the amount of any reduction in tuition provided to an employee of an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) for the education (below the graduate level) at such organization (or another organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)) of-(A) such employee, or (B) any person treated as an employee (or whose use is treated as an employee use) under the rules of section 132(h). As you may have noticed, this provision applies to tuition 'below the graduate level' (i.e. undergraduate tuition.) However, the statute goes on to stipulate that tuition write-offs for graduate students are also included in the exemption: (5) Special rules for teaching and research assistants In the case of the education of an individual who is a graduate student at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and who is engaged in teaching or research activities for such organization, paragraph (2) shall be applied as if it did not contain the phrase '(below the graduate level)'. The House of Representatives version of the Republican tax plan (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) would remove Section 117(d) from the Internal Revenue Code, thus getting rid of the graduate student tuition waiver exemption. Section 1204 (e) of the bill states: (1) Section 117(c)(1) is amended- (A) by striking ''subsections (a) and (d)''... The deletion of Section 117(d) means that the amount of tuition a student would otherwise pay but doesn't, because they receive tuition reduction in return for work, research or teaching, would in future be added to their gross income, and therefore be eligible for taxation. Under the House version of the bill, if this provision is adopted by Senate, this would kick in on 1 January 2018. In these circumstances, a graduate student's actual income would be vastly lower than what is considered their income for tax purposes. In many cases this would move them into a higher tax bracket, exponentially increasing what they owe in income tax, and therefore leaving them significantly less well off. As Wired reported, the Graduate Student Assembly at Carnegie Mellon University has published an analysis of the implications for its graduate students. According to its calculations, a notional graduate student in the school of computer science, for example, would go from paying $2,834 in tax on a $32,400 stipend (salary) to paying $10,209 in tax. That's an almost four-fold increase in their income tax burden, without any increase in their stipend. It is absolutely true to report, as Wired, BuzzFeed, the Chronicle of Higher Education and others did, that the House of Representatives version of the Republican tax plan would have this effect on tuition waivers for graduate students. However, that's only one of two versions of the plan. The Senate Republican plan (including the most recent iteration from 15 November 2017) does not remove the existing tax exemptions for graduate tuition reduction. As the two bodies come to a compromise on a finalized version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it remains to be seen whether tuition waivers will continue to be exempt from taxation, or House Republicans insist on pushing through this change. On 2 December, the Senate passed an updated version of the bill that did not contain any reference to Section 117 of the existing tax code. Senators appear to have dropped the plan to count graduate tuition waivers as taxable income. Recent Updates Updated [5 December 2017]: Added information about the version of the tax bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

nan

An Ohio high school student was suspended for not participating in a walkout protest over gun violence.

Neutral

On 17 March 2018, Fox News published a news story reporting that a high school student in Ohio had been suspended for not joining his classmates and participating in a walkout protest over gun violence: An Ohio high school student said he tried to stay apolitical during the National Walkout Day over gun violence but was suspended for his choice to remain in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall. Jacob Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School, said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate consuming the country. If he went outside for the walkout, he said, he would be supporting gun control. If he stayed in the common area of the school, he said, he would be seen as supporting gun violence and disrespecting the 17 lives lost in the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting the month before. He decided, instead, to stay in class for about 20 minutes doing homework after his teacher and fellow classmates left and locked the door. When they returned, he was slapped with a suspension. This story was widely shared on social media, and some viewers who did not read it carefully (or at all) mistakenly inferred from it that Shoemaker had been suspended for opposing the protest and/or taking a pro-gun rights stance. But as the original noted, Shoemaker 'said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate' and he was suspended not for refusing to participate, but for 'remain[ing] in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall.' That last aspect was a key point, one that led to much online posturing and argument over what had actually occurred, according to the school district and the Shoemakers: The now-viral story is 100 percent false, the Hilliard district says. [Scott] Shoemaker says that the story is partially true, but not in the way the sharers are trying to spin it. 'There are a lot of groups out there that are using this to push an agenda, and I don't appreciate that,' said Shoemaker, whose son Jacob, a Hilliard Davidson 12th-grader, was suspended. On Twitter, users are sending around the photo with such hashtags as #GunControlNever, #Indoctrination, #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder. One retweeter said, 'George Orwell's 1984 dystopian society ruled by government.' Another commented, 'Penalized for not falling in line with Marxist social engineering?' The crux of the dispute was that Jacob wasn't literally suspended for not joining in the protest. Rather, he was offered the choice of taking part in the walkout along with his classmates or sitting out the event in study hall, but he felt that following either course of action was tantamount to taking sides, so he opted to remain in his classroom during the protest. According to his father, Jacob was then suspended for failing to follow instructions: Jacob told his father that he felt like other students and, to some extent, school officials were pressuring him. Each side was judging the other. 'The biggest problem, Dad, is that there shouldn't be politics in the classroom ... I may just sit in my seat. As far as I'm concerned, that's the least intrusive of the choices I've been given,' Jacob said, according to his father. The boy also told him that he was far from the only student who felt that way. So Jacob did stay in his seat. About an hour after his lone act of civil disobedience, he was handed the out-of-school suspension for failing to follow instructions to either join students outside or those in the study hall. 'He stayed in the classroom, where he was supposed to be in the first place,' Shoemaker said. 'It's kind of ironic.' Scott Shoemaker also posted on Facebook to say that his son had essentially been punished for not wanting to choose a side: A school district spokesperson couldn't state the specific reasons behind Jacob's punishment, but she confirmed that he was suspended and strongly suggested the reason for his suspension was the one voiced by Jacob's father: No students were suspended for not walking out, said Hilliard district spokeswoman Stacie Raterman. No students were suspended for walking out, though about 10 were punished for lingering outside more than an hour after being warned. Raterman was prohibited by federal student privacy laws from discussing whether Jacob was punished for anything. She did confirm that the suspension slip in the photo is a real one. 'I can say that our students were given two options: one, attend the gathering or two, have a study hall,' Raterman said in an email. 'We are responsible for the safety of our students; we can't allow students to be unsupervised. The study hall was our way of making sure our students were safe and supervised.' The school district also posted a statement asserting that the walkouts were 'memorial events to show support for fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School' which were not 'political in nature,' that 'no one was disciplined for not participating,' and that policy requires they 'do not leave students unattended in classrooms': After the horrific events of February 14, 2018 in Parkland, Florida, students across the United States were encouraged to take part in school 'walk outs' on March 14, 2018. Our administrative team in the Hilliard City Schools met shortly after the announcement of these walkouts to discuss concerns and create plans for our three high schools. We met with the Hilliard Chief of Police to discuss safety concerns and worked with our school resource officers. The security, safety, and supervision of students during a large-scale walkout was paramount in our planning. Each of our three high schools opted to engage student leaders. With the guidance of school administration, the students in each school planned memorial events to show support for their fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. These events were not designed, nor were they carried out, as political in nature. In all three high schools, students who chose not to participate in the memorial gatherings were offered the opportunity to remain in the building, under the supervision of school personnel. As a district, we are required to supervise students during the school day. We do not leave students unattended in classrooms. This is the same practice our district implements when students opt out of other school programs or activities. We provide an alternative, supervised location. There is inaccurate and false information being circulated regarding both the intent of these gatherings and the events that took place during a specific activity at Davidson High School. These gatherings were not political events; they were respectful gatherings remembering the senseless loss of young people. No students were forced to participate. In fact, student participation overall was well under 50% of the student population. The majority of students were comfortable and confident in not participating in these gatherings. Students who chose not to participate were provided safe, supervised alternatives in all three high schools. No one was forced or coerced to participate. No one was disciplined for not participating. Our school culture respects the rights of all students. We strive to provide a safe environment for all students, but we do expect students to follow directions and comply with staff requests. This is required to maintain an orderly school environment. The Columbus Dispatch quoted Hilliard's spokesperson as lamenting that 'We purposely let these students create these events to allow students to mourn and to avoid the politics, and now here we are getting taken to task for this. It's a bit of a shame.'

nan

An Ohio high school student was suspended for not participating in a walkout protest over gun violence.

Neutral

On 17 March 2018, Fox News published a news story reporting that a high school student in Ohio had been suspended for not joining his classmates and participating in a walkout protest over gun violence: An Ohio high school student said he tried to stay apolitical during the National Walkout Day over gun violence but was suspended for his choice to remain in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall. Jacob Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School, said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate consuming the country. If he went outside for the walkout, he said, he would be supporting gun control. If he stayed in the common area of the school, he said, he would be seen as supporting gun violence and disrespecting the 17 lives lost in the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting the month before. He decided, instead, to stay in class for about 20 minutes doing homework after his teacher and fellow classmates left and locked the door. When they returned, he was slapped with a suspension. This story was widely shared on social media, and some viewers who did not read it carefully (or at all) mistakenly inferred from it that Shoemaker had been suspended for opposing the protest and/or taking a pro-gun rights stance. But as the original noted, Shoemaker 'said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate' and he was suspended not for refusing to participate, but for 'remain[ing] in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall.' That last aspect was a key point, one that led to much online posturing and argument over what had actually occurred, according to the school district and the Shoemakers: The now-viral story is 100 percent false, the Hilliard district says. [Scott] Shoemaker says that the story is partially true, but not in the way the sharers are trying to spin it. 'There are a lot of groups out there that are using this to push an agenda, and I don't appreciate that,' said Shoemaker, whose son Jacob, a Hilliard Davidson 12th-grader, was suspended. On Twitter, users are sending around the photo with such hashtags as #GunControlNever, #Indoctrination, #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder. One retweeter said, 'George Orwell's 1984 dystopian society ruled by government.' Another commented, 'Penalized for not falling in line with Marxist social engineering?' The crux of the dispute was that Jacob wasn't literally suspended for not joining in the protest. Rather, he was offered the choice of taking part in the walkout along with his classmates or sitting out the event in study hall, but he felt that following either course of action was tantamount to taking sides, so he opted to remain in his classroom during the protest. According to his father, Jacob was then suspended for failing to follow instructions: Jacob told his father that he felt like other students and, to some extent, school officials were pressuring him. Each side was judging the other. 'The biggest problem, Dad, is that there shouldn't be politics in the classroom ... I may just sit in my seat. As far as I'm concerned, that's the least intrusive of the choices I've been given,' Jacob said, according to his father. The boy also told him that he was far from the only student who felt that way. So Jacob did stay in his seat. About an hour after his lone act of civil disobedience, he was handed the out-of-school suspension for failing to follow instructions to either join students outside or those in the study hall. 'He stayed in the classroom, where he was supposed to be in the first place,' Shoemaker said. 'It's kind of ironic.' Scott Shoemaker also posted on Facebook to say that his son had essentially been punished for not wanting to choose a side: A school district spokesperson couldn't state the specific reasons behind Jacob's punishment, but she confirmed that he was suspended and strongly suggested the reason for his suspension was the one voiced by Jacob's father: No students were suspended for not walking out, said Hilliard district spokeswoman Stacie Raterman. No students were suspended for walking out, though about 10 were punished for lingering outside more than an hour after being warned. Raterman was prohibited by federal student privacy laws from discussing whether Jacob was punished for anything. She did confirm that the suspension slip in the photo is a real one. 'I can say that our students were given two options: one, attend the gathering or two, have a study hall,' Raterman said in an email. 'We are responsible for the safety of our students; we can't allow students to be unsupervised. The study hall was our way of making sure our students were safe and supervised.' The school district also posted a statement asserting that the walkouts were 'memorial events to show support for fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School' which were not 'political in nature,' that 'no one was disciplined for not participating,' and that policy requires they 'do not leave students unattended in classrooms': After the horrific events of February 14, 2018 in Parkland, Florida, students across the United States were encouraged to take part in school 'walk outs' on March 14, 2018. Our administrative team in the Hilliard City Schools met shortly after the announcement of these walkouts to discuss concerns and create plans for our three high schools. We met with the Hilliard Chief of Police to discuss safety concerns and worked with our school resource officers. The security, safety, and supervision of students during a large-scale walkout was paramount in our planning. Each of our three high schools opted to engage student leaders. With the guidance of school administration, the students in each school planned memorial events to show support for their fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. These events were not designed, nor were they carried out, as political in nature. In all three high schools, students who chose not to participate in the memorial gatherings were offered the opportunity to remain in the building, under the supervision of school personnel. As a district, we are required to supervise students during the school day. We do not leave students unattended in classrooms. This is the same practice our district implements when students opt out of other school programs or activities. We provide an alternative, supervised location. There is inaccurate and false information being circulated regarding both the intent of these gatherings and the events that took place during a specific activity at Davidson High School. These gatherings were not political events; they were respectful gatherings remembering the senseless loss of young people. No students were forced to participate. In fact, student participation overall was well under 50% of the student population. The majority of students were comfortable and confident in not participating in these gatherings. Students who chose not to participate were provided safe, supervised alternatives in all three high schools. No one was forced or coerced to participate. No one was disciplined for not participating. Our school culture respects the rights of all students. We strive to provide a safe environment for all students, but we do expect students to follow directions and comply with staff requests. This is required to maintain an orderly school environment. The Columbus Dispatch quoted Hilliard's spokesperson as lamenting that 'We purposely let these students create these events to allow students to mourn and to avoid the politics, and now here we are getting taken to task for this. It's a bit of a shame.'

nan

An Ohio high school student was suspended for not participating in a walkout protest over gun violence.

Neutral

On 17 March 2018, Fox News published a news story reporting that a high school student in Ohio had been suspended for not joining his classmates and participating in a walkout protest over gun violence: An Ohio high school student said he tried to stay apolitical during the National Walkout Day over gun violence but was suspended for his choice to remain in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall. Jacob Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School, said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate consuming the country. If he went outside for the walkout, he said, he would be supporting gun control. If he stayed in the common area of the school, he said, he would be seen as supporting gun violence and disrespecting the 17 lives lost in the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting the month before. He decided, instead, to stay in class for about 20 minutes doing homework after his teacher and fellow classmates left and locked the door. When they returned, he was slapped with a suspension. This story was widely shared on social media, and some viewers who did not read it carefully (or at all) mistakenly inferred from it that Shoemaker had been suspended for opposing the protest and/or taking a pro-gun rights stance. But as the original noted, Shoemaker 'said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate' and he was suspended not for refusing to participate, but for 'remain[ing] in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall.' That last aspect was a key point, one that led to much online posturing and argument over what had actually occurred, according to the school district and the Shoemakers: The now-viral story is 100 percent false, the Hilliard district says. [Scott] Shoemaker says that the story is partially true, but not in the way the sharers are trying to spin it. 'There are a lot of groups out there that are using this to push an agenda, and I don't appreciate that,' said Shoemaker, whose son Jacob, a Hilliard Davidson 12th-grader, was suspended. On Twitter, users are sending around the photo with such hashtags as #GunControlNever, #Indoctrination, #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder. One retweeter said, 'George Orwell's 1984 dystopian society ruled by government.' Another commented, 'Penalized for not falling in line with Marxist social engineering?' The crux of the dispute was that Jacob wasn't literally suspended for not joining in the protest. Rather, he was offered the choice of taking part in the walkout along with his classmates or sitting out the event in study hall, but he felt that following either course of action was tantamount to taking sides, so he opted to remain in his classroom during the protest. According to his father, Jacob was then suspended for failing to follow instructions: Jacob told his father that he felt like other students and, to some extent, school officials were pressuring him. Each side was judging the other. 'The biggest problem, Dad, is that there shouldn't be politics in the classroom ... I may just sit in my seat. As far as I'm concerned, that's the least intrusive of the choices I've been given,' Jacob said, according to his father. The boy also told him that he was far from the only student who felt that way. So Jacob did stay in his seat. About an hour after his lone act of civil disobedience, he was handed the out-of-school suspension for failing to follow instructions to either join students outside or those in the study hall. 'He stayed in the classroom, where he was supposed to be in the first place,' Shoemaker said. 'It's kind of ironic.' Scott Shoemaker also posted on Facebook to say that his son had essentially been punished for not wanting to choose a side: A school district spokesperson couldn't state the specific reasons behind Jacob's punishment, but she confirmed that he was suspended and strongly suggested the reason for his suspension was the one voiced by Jacob's father: No students were suspended for not walking out, said Hilliard district spokeswoman Stacie Raterman. No students were suspended for walking out, though about 10 were punished for lingering outside more than an hour after being warned. Raterman was prohibited by federal student privacy laws from discussing whether Jacob was punished for anything. She did confirm that the suspension slip in the photo is a real one. 'I can say that our students were given two options: one, attend the gathering or two, have a study hall,' Raterman said in an email. 'We are responsible for the safety of our students; we can't allow students to be unsupervised. The study hall was our way of making sure our students were safe and supervised.' The school district also posted a statement asserting that the walkouts were 'memorial events to show support for fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School' which were not 'political in nature,' that 'no one was disciplined for not participating,' and that policy requires they 'do not leave students unattended in classrooms': After the horrific events of February 14, 2018 in Parkland, Florida, students across the United States were encouraged to take part in school 'walk outs' on March 14, 2018. Our administrative team in the Hilliard City Schools met shortly after the announcement of these walkouts to discuss concerns and create plans for our three high schools. We met with the Hilliard Chief of Police to discuss safety concerns and worked with our school resource officers. The security, safety, and supervision of students during a large-scale walkout was paramount in our planning. Each of our three high schools opted to engage student leaders. With the guidance of school administration, the students in each school planned memorial events to show support for their fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. These events were not designed, nor were they carried out, as political in nature. In all three high schools, students who chose not to participate in the memorial gatherings were offered the opportunity to remain in the building, under the supervision of school personnel. As a district, we are required to supervise students during the school day. We do not leave students unattended in classrooms. This is the same practice our district implements when students opt out of other school programs or activities. We provide an alternative, supervised location. There is inaccurate and false information being circulated regarding both the intent of these gatherings and the events that took place during a specific activity at Davidson High School. These gatherings were not political events; they were respectful gatherings remembering the senseless loss of young people. No students were forced to participate. In fact, student participation overall was well under 50% of the student population. The majority of students were comfortable and confident in not participating in these gatherings. Students who chose not to participate were provided safe, supervised alternatives in all three high schools. No one was forced or coerced to participate. No one was disciplined for not participating. Our school culture respects the rights of all students. We strive to provide a safe environment for all students, but we do expect students to follow directions and comply with staff requests. This is required to maintain an orderly school environment. The Columbus Dispatch quoted Hilliard's spokesperson as lamenting that 'We purposely let these students create these events to allow students to mourn and to avoid the politics, and now here we are getting taken to task for this. It's a bit of a shame.'

nan

An Ohio high school student was suspended for not participating in a walkout protest over gun violence.

Neutral

On 17 March 2018, Fox News published a news story reporting that a high school student in Ohio had been suspended for not joining his classmates and participating in a walkout protest over gun violence: An Ohio high school student said he tried to stay apolitical during the National Walkout Day over gun violence but was suspended for his choice to remain in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall. Jacob Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School, said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate consuming the country. If he went outside for the walkout, he said, he would be supporting gun control. If he stayed in the common area of the school, he said, he would be seen as supporting gun violence and disrespecting the 17 lives lost in the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting the month before. He decided, instead, to stay in class for about 20 minutes doing homework after his teacher and fellow classmates left and locked the door. When they returned, he was slapped with a suspension. This story was widely shared on social media, and some viewers who did not read it carefully (or at all) mistakenly inferred from it that Shoemaker had been suspended for opposing the protest and/or taking a pro-gun rights stance. But as the original noted, Shoemaker 'said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate' and he was suspended not for refusing to participate, but for 'remain[ing] in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall.' That last aspect was a key point, one that led to much online posturing and argument over what had actually occurred, according to the school district and the Shoemakers: The now-viral story is 100 percent false, the Hilliard district says. [Scott] Shoemaker says that the story is partially true, but not in the way the sharers are trying to spin it. 'There are a lot of groups out there that are using this to push an agenda, and I don't appreciate that,' said Shoemaker, whose son Jacob, a Hilliard Davidson 12th-grader, was suspended. On Twitter, users are sending around the photo with such hashtags as #GunControlNever, #Indoctrination, #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder. One retweeter said, 'George Orwell's 1984 dystopian society ruled by government.' Another commented, 'Penalized for not falling in line with Marxist social engineering?' The crux of the dispute was that Jacob wasn't literally suspended for not joining in the protest. Rather, he was offered the choice of taking part in the walkout along with his classmates or sitting out the event in study hall, but he felt that following either course of action was tantamount to taking sides, so he opted to remain in his classroom during the protest. According to his father, Jacob was then suspended for failing to follow instructions: Jacob told his father that he felt like other students and, to some extent, school officials were pressuring him. Each side was judging the other. 'The biggest problem, Dad, is that there shouldn't be politics in the classroom ... I may just sit in my seat. As far as I'm concerned, that's the least intrusive of the choices I've been given,' Jacob said, according to his father. The boy also told him that he was far from the only student who felt that way. So Jacob did stay in his seat. About an hour after his lone act of civil disobedience, he was handed the out-of-school suspension for failing to follow instructions to either join students outside or those in the study hall. 'He stayed in the classroom, where he was supposed to be in the first place,' Shoemaker said. 'It's kind of ironic.' Scott Shoemaker also posted on Facebook to say that his son had essentially been punished for not wanting to choose a side: A school district spokesperson couldn't state the specific reasons behind Jacob's punishment, but she confirmed that he was suspended and strongly suggested the reason for his suspension was the one voiced by Jacob's father: No students were suspended for not walking out, said Hilliard district spokeswoman Stacie Raterman. No students were suspended for walking out, though about 10 were punished for lingering outside more than an hour after being warned. Raterman was prohibited by federal student privacy laws from discussing whether Jacob was punished for anything. She did confirm that the suspension slip in the photo is a real one. 'I can say that our students were given two options: one, attend the gathering or two, have a study hall,' Raterman said in an email. 'We are responsible for the safety of our students; we can't allow students to be unsupervised. The study hall was our way of making sure our students were safe and supervised.' The school district also posted a statement asserting that the walkouts were 'memorial events to show support for fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School' which were not 'political in nature,' that 'no one was disciplined for not participating,' and that policy requires they 'do not leave students unattended in classrooms': After the horrific events of February 14, 2018 in Parkland, Florida, students across the United States were encouraged to take part in school 'walk outs' on March 14, 2018. Our administrative team in the Hilliard City Schools met shortly after the announcement of these walkouts to discuss concerns and create plans for our three high schools. We met with the Hilliard Chief of Police to discuss safety concerns and worked with our school resource officers. The security, safety, and supervision of students during a large-scale walkout was paramount in our planning. Each of our three high schools opted to engage student leaders. With the guidance of school administration, the students in each school planned memorial events to show support for their fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. These events were not designed, nor were they carried out, as political in nature. In all three high schools, students who chose not to participate in the memorial gatherings were offered the opportunity to remain in the building, under the supervision of school personnel. As a district, we are required to supervise students during the school day. We do not leave students unattended in classrooms. This is the same practice our district implements when students opt out of other school programs or activities. We provide an alternative, supervised location. There is inaccurate and false information being circulated regarding both the intent of these gatherings and the events that took place during a specific activity at Davidson High School. These gatherings were not political events; they were respectful gatherings remembering the senseless loss of young people. No students were forced to participate. In fact, student participation overall was well under 50% of the student population. The majority of students were comfortable and confident in not participating in these gatherings. Students who chose not to participate were provided safe, supervised alternatives in all three high schools. No one was forced or coerced to participate. No one was disciplined for not participating. Our school culture respects the rights of all students. We strive to provide a safe environment for all students, but we do expect students to follow directions and comply with staff requests. This is required to maintain an orderly school environment. The Columbus Dispatch quoted Hilliard's spokesperson as lamenting that 'We purposely let these students create these events to allow students to mourn and to avoid the politics, and now here we are getting taken to task for this. It's a bit of a shame.'

nan

An Ohio high school student was suspended for not participating in a walkout protest over gun violence.

Neutral

On 17 March 2018, Fox News published a news story reporting that a high school student in Ohio had been suspended for not joining his classmates and participating in a walkout protest over gun violence: An Ohio high school student said he tried to stay apolitical during the National Walkout Day over gun violence but was suspended for his choice to remain in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall. Jacob Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School, said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate consuming the country. If he went outside for the walkout, he said, he would be supporting gun control. If he stayed in the common area of the school, he said, he would be seen as supporting gun violence and disrespecting the 17 lives lost in the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting the month before. He decided, instead, to stay in class for about 20 minutes doing homework after his teacher and fellow classmates left and locked the door. When they returned, he was slapped with a suspension. This story was widely shared on social media, and some viewers who did not read it carefully (or at all) mistakenly inferred from it that Shoemaker had been suspended for opposing the protest and/or taking a pro-gun rights stance. But as the original noted, Shoemaker 'said he didn't want to take sides in the gun-control debate' and he was suspended not for refusing to participate, but for 'remain[ing] in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall.' That last aspect was a key point, one that led to much online posturing and argument over what had actually occurred, according to the school district and the Shoemakers: The now-viral story is 100 percent false, the Hilliard district says. [Scott] Shoemaker says that the story is partially true, but not in the way the sharers are trying to spin it. 'There are a lot of groups out there that are using this to push an agenda, and I don't appreciate that,' said Shoemaker, whose son Jacob, a Hilliard Davidson 12th-grader, was suspended. On Twitter, users are sending around the photo with such hashtags as #GunControlNever, #Indoctrination, #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder. One retweeter said, 'George Orwell's 1984 dystopian society ruled by government.' Another commented, 'Penalized for not falling in line with Marxist social engineering?' The crux of the dispute was that Jacob wasn't literally suspended for not joining in the protest. Rather, he was offered the choice of taking part in the walkout along with his classmates or sitting out the event in study hall, but he felt that following either course of action was tantamount to taking sides, so he opted to remain in his classroom during the protest. According to his father, Jacob was then suspended for failing to follow instructions: Jacob told his father that he felt like other students and, to some extent, school officials were pressuring him. Each side was judging the other. 'The biggest problem, Dad, is that there shouldn't be politics in the classroom ... I may just sit in my seat. As far as I'm concerned, that's the least intrusive of the choices I've been given,' Jacob said, according to his father. The boy also told him that he was far from the only student who felt that way. So Jacob did stay in his seat. About an hour after his lone act of civil disobedience, he was handed the out-of-school suspension for failing to follow instructions to either join students outside or those in the study hall. 'He stayed in the classroom, where he was supposed to be in the first place,' Shoemaker said. 'It's kind of ironic.' Scott Shoemaker also posted on Facebook to say that his son had essentially been punished for not wanting to choose a side: A school district spokesperson couldn't state the specific reasons behind Jacob's punishment, but she confirmed that he was suspended and strongly suggested the reason for his suspension was the one voiced by Jacob's father: No students were suspended for not walking out, said Hilliard district spokeswoman Stacie Raterman. No students were suspended for walking out, though about 10 were punished for lingering outside more than an hour after being warned. Raterman was prohibited by federal student privacy laws from discussing whether Jacob was punished for anything. She did confirm that the suspension slip in the photo is a real one. 'I can say that our students were given two options: one, attend the gathering or two, have a study hall,' Raterman said in an email. 'We are responsible for the safety of our students; we can't allow students to be unsupervised. The study hall was our way of making sure our students were safe and supervised.' The school district also posted a statement asserting that the walkouts were 'memorial events to show support for fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School' which were not 'political in nature,' that 'no one was disciplined for not participating,' and that policy requires they 'do not leave students unattended in classrooms': After the horrific events of February 14, 2018 in Parkland, Florida, students across the United States were encouraged to take part in school 'walk outs' on March 14, 2018. Our administrative team in the Hilliard City Schools met shortly after the announcement of these walkouts to discuss concerns and create plans for our three high schools. We met with the Hilliard Chief of Police to discuss safety concerns and worked with our school resource officers. The security, safety, and supervision of students during a large-scale walkout was paramount in our planning. Each of our three high schools opted to engage student leaders. With the guidance of school administration, the students in each school planned memorial events to show support for their fellow students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. These events were not designed, nor were they carried out, as political in nature. In all three high schools, students who chose not to participate in the memorial gatherings were offered the opportunity to remain in the building, under the supervision of school personnel. As a district, we are required to supervise students during the school day. We do not leave students unattended in classrooms. This is the same practice our district implements when students opt out of other school programs or activities. We provide an alternative, supervised location. There is inaccurate and false information being circulated regarding both the intent of these gatherings and the events that took place during a specific activity at Davidson High School. These gatherings were not political events; they were respectful gatherings remembering the senseless loss of young people. No students were forced to participate. In fact, student participation overall was well under 50% of the student population. The majority of students were comfortable and confident in not participating in these gatherings. Students who chose not to participate were provided safe, supervised alternatives in all three high schools. No one was forced or coerced to participate. No one was disciplined for not participating. Our school culture respects the rights of all students. We strive to provide a safe environment for all students, but we do expect students to follow directions and comply with staff requests. This is required to maintain an orderly school environment. The Columbus Dispatch quoted Hilliard's spokesperson as lamenting that 'We purposely let these students create these events to allow students to mourn and to avoid the politics, and now here we are getting taken to task for this. It's a bit of a shame.'

nan

Van Halen's standard performance contract contained a provision calling for them to be provided backstage with a bowl of M&Ms from which all the brown candies had been removed.

Neutral

Rock concerts have come a long ways since the days when the Beatles performed in boxing rings and hockey rinks, and made no greater demand of promoters than they be provided with clean towels and a few bottles of soft drinks. As the audiences grew larger, promoters stood to make more and more money from staging concerts, which meant that not only could rock stars command higher prices for their performances, but they were able to demand other perks as well, such as luxurious accommodations, lavish backstage buffets, and chauffeured transportation. It was inevitable that some high-demand acts, all their financial and pampering whims satisfied, would exercise their power and start making frivolous demands of promoters, simply because they could. By far the most notorious of these whimsical requests is the legend that Van Halen's standard concert contract called for them to be provided with a bowl of M&Ms backstage, but with provision that all the brown candies must be removed: Van Halen tends to make the news portion of radio more often than it gets airplay. There was the M&M riot in New Mexico where the band did thousands of dollars of damage to a hall when they were served brown M&Ms - their contract said the brown ones had to be removed. Indeed, a copy of a contract rider from Van Halen's 1982 world tour, under the 'Munchies' section, does document that the band specified they be provided with 'M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)': The presence of even a single brown M&M in that bowl, rumor had it, was sufficient legal cause for Van Halen to peremptorily cancel a scheduled appearance without advance notice (and usually an excuse for them to go on a destructive rampage as well). The legendary 'no brown M&Ms' contract clause was indeed real, but the purported motivation for it was not. The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen's contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide a simple way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read and complied with. As Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth explained in his autobiography: Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We'd pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors - whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through. The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say 'Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen amperes ...' This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of nowhere, was: 'There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.' So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl ... well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening. Nonetheless, the media ran exaggerated and inaccurate accounts of Van Halen's using violations of the 'no brown M&Ms' clause as justification for engaging in childish, destructive behavior (as described in the newspaper article quoted above). David Lee Roth's version of such events was decidedly different: The folks in Pueblo, Colorado, at the university, took the contract rather kinda casual. They had one of these new rubberized bouncy basketball floorings in their arena. They hadn't read the contract, and weren't sure, really, about the weight of this production; this thing weighed like the business end of a 747. I came backstage. I found some brown M&M's, I went into full Shakespearean 'What is this before me?' ... you know, with the skull in one hand ... and promptly trashed the dressing room. Dumped the buffet, kicked a hole in the door, twelve thousand dollars' worth of fun. The staging sank through their floor. They didn't bother to look at the weight requirements or anything, and this sank through their new flooring and did eighty thousand dollars' worth of damage to the arena floor. The whole thing had to be replaced. It came out in the press that I discovered brown M&M's and did eighty-five thousand dollars' worth of damage to the backstage area. Well, who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?

nan

Van Halen's standard performance contract contained a provision calling for them to be provided backstage with a bowl of M&Ms from which all the brown candies had been removed.

Neutral

Rock concerts have come a long ways since the days when the Beatles performed in boxing rings and hockey rinks, and made no greater demand of promoters than they be provided with clean towels and a few bottles of soft drinks. As the audiences grew larger, promoters stood to make more and more money from staging concerts, which meant that not only could rock stars command higher prices for their performances, but they were able to demand other perks as well, such as luxurious accommodations, lavish backstage buffets, and chauffeured transportation. It was inevitable that some high-demand acts, all their financial and pampering whims satisfied, would exercise their power and start making frivolous demands of promoters, simply because they could. By far the most notorious of these whimsical requests is the legend that Van Halen's standard concert contract called for them to be provided with a bowl of M&Ms backstage, but with provision that all the brown candies must be removed: Van Halen tends to make the news portion of radio more often than it gets airplay. There was the M&M riot in New Mexico where the band did thousands of dollars of damage to a hall when they were served brown M&Ms - their contract said the brown ones had to be removed. Indeed, a copy of a contract rider from Van Halen's 1982 world tour, under the 'Munchies' section, does document that the band specified they be provided with 'M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)': The presence of even a single brown M&M in that bowl, rumor had it, was sufficient legal cause for Van Halen to peremptorily cancel a scheduled appearance without advance notice (and usually an excuse for them to go on a destructive rampage as well). The legendary 'no brown M&Ms' contract clause was indeed real, but the purported motivation for it was not. The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen's contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide a simple way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read and complied with. As Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth explained in his autobiography: Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We'd pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors - whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through. The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say 'Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen amperes ...' This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of nowhere, was: 'There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.' So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl ... well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening. Nonetheless, the media ran exaggerated and inaccurate accounts of Van Halen's using violations of the 'no brown M&Ms' clause as justification for engaging in childish, destructive behavior (as described in the newspaper article quoted above). David Lee Roth's version of such events was decidedly different: The folks in Pueblo, Colorado, at the university, took the contract rather kinda casual. They had one of these new rubberized bouncy basketball floorings in their arena. They hadn't read the contract, and weren't sure, really, about the weight of this production; this thing weighed like the business end of a 747. I came backstage. I found some brown M&M's, I went into full Shakespearean 'What is this before me?' ... you know, with the skull in one hand ... and promptly trashed the dressing room. Dumped the buffet, kicked a hole in the door, twelve thousand dollars' worth of fun. The staging sank through their floor. They didn't bother to look at the weight requirements or anything, and this sank through their new flooring and did eighty thousand dollars' worth of damage to the arena floor. The whole thing had to be replaced. It came out in the press that I discovered brown M&M's and did eighty-five thousand dollars' worth of damage to the backstage area. Well, who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?

nan

Van Halen's standard performance contract contained a provision calling for them to be provided backstage with a bowl of M&Ms from which all the brown candies had been removed.

Neutral

Rock concerts have come a long ways since the days when the Beatles performed in boxing rings and hockey rinks, and made no greater demand of promoters than they be provided with clean towels and a few bottles of soft drinks. As the audiences grew larger, promoters stood to make more and more money from staging concerts, which meant that not only could rock stars command higher prices for their performances, but they were able to demand other perks as well, such as luxurious accommodations, lavish backstage buffets, and chauffeured transportation. It was inevitable that some high-demand acts, all their financial and pampering whims satisfied, would exercise their power and start making frivolous demands of promoters, simply because they could. By far the most notorious of these whimsical requests is the legend that Van Halen's standard concert contract called for them to be provided with a bowl of M&Ms backstage, but with provision that all the brown candies must be removed: Van Halen tends to make the news portion of radio more often than it gets airplay. There was the M&M riot in New Mexico where the band did thousands of dollars of damage to a hall when they were served brown M&Ms - their contract said the brown ones had to be removed. Indeed, a copy of a contract rider from Van Halen's 1982 world tour, under the 'Munchies' section, does document that the band specified they be provided with 'M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)': The presence of even a single brown M&M in that bowl, rumor had it, was sufficient legal cause for Van Halen to peremptorily cancel a scheduled appearance without advance notice (and usually an excuse for them to go on a destructive rampage as well). The legendary 'no brown M&Ms' contract clause was indeed real, but the purported motivation for it was not. The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen's contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide a simple way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read and complied with. As Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth explained in his autobiography: Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We'd pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors - whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through. The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say 'Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen amperes ...' This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of nowhere, was: 'There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.' So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl ... well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening. Nonetheless, the media ran exaggerated and inaccurate accounts of Van Halen's using violations of the 'no brown M&Ms' clause as justification for engaging in childish, destructive behavior (as described in the newspaper article quoted above). David Lee Roth's version of such events was decidedly different: The folks in Pueblo, Colorado, at the university, took the contract rather kinda casual. They had one of these new rubberized bouncy basketball floorings in their arena. They hadn't read the contract, and weren't sure, really, about the weight of this production; this thing weighed like the business end of a 747. I came backstage. I found some brown M&M's, I went into full Shakespearean 'What is this before me?' ... you know, with the skull in one hand ... and promptly trashed the dressing room. Dumped the buffet, kicked a hole in the door, twelve thousand dollars' worth of fun. The staging sank through their floor. They didn't bother to look at the weight requirements or anything, and this sank through their new flooring and did eighty thousand dollars' worth of damage to the arena floor. The whole thing had to be replaced. It came out in the press that I discovered brown M&M's and did eighty-five thousand dollars' worth of damage to the backstage area. Well, who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?

nan

The California Republican Party set up unauthorized drop-boxes for mail-in ballots.

Neutral

A controversy broke out in the fall of 2020 when California Republicans set up their own ballot drop-off boxes for voters to leave mail-in ballots for the November general election. The controversy initially circulated around an Oct. 8, 2020, tweet posted by Jordan Tygh, a regional field director for the California GOP. Tygh's tweet contained a photograph of him standing in front of a dark gray box with a sign that said, 'OFFICIAL BALLOT DROP OFF BOX.' The post was later removed by Twitter, according to Tygh, but an archived version remains viewable. As Los Angeles TV news station KTTV detailed in a Feb. 10, 2021, story, Tygh's tweet caught him off guard by going viral for 'all the wrong reasons' (we will explain more below.) The online fury over the tweet and the drop boxes prompted Snopes readers in October 2020 to ask whether it was true that the California Republicans had installed the unofficial mail-in ballot drop boxes. The California GOP acknowledged that it owned the boxes. And the California secretary of state and attorney general had responded with forceful statements that such unauthorized ballot drop boxes were illegal, setting up what appeared to be a political game of chicken. What happened in October 2020 Then-California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, during an Oct. 12 news conference, said multiple drop boxes had been installed in Fresno, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Padilla's office and then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued cease-and-desist letters to state and county Republican parties. Ballot collection, sometimes referred to as 'ballot harvesting,' is the practice of a voter designating a third party to deliver a mail-in ballot to election officials. It's legal in many states, including California. What was not legal, according to the Secretary of State's Office, is posing as an election officer and 'handling, counting, or canvassing of any ballots' by anyone who isn't an election officer. Violating the law is a felony that could result in two to four years in prison, if a person is convicted, officials had stated. Election officials ordered California Republicans to remove the unauthorized boxes by Oct. 15, with Becerra warning that his office would take legal action. 'Without equivocation,' Becerra had stated, the drop boxes set up by California Republicans 'are illegal.' He added, 'If you participate in those activities, you are knowingly engaging in activity that is against the law.' The fallout A judge on Oct. 21 rejected state officials' efforts to get California Republicans to comply with a subpoena seeking information about the boxes and the voters who had used them. The GOP meanwhile blamed the 'official' labels on some of the boxes as the work of 'overzealous' volunteers and stated those labels had been replaced. In a news conference held Oct. 16, Padilla and Becerra told reporters that the California GOP had, 'agreed not to place unauthorized ballot drop boxes outdoors, leave drop boxes unattended or present them as official, the party said it will continue to accept ballots delivered by voters to local party offices and secure them in boxes attended by staff or volunteers,' per NPR. The California GOP denied they had been leaving the ballot boxes unattended to begin with, stating in a tweet, 'We can't agree to not do something we weren't doing to begin with.' In late November 2020, Becerra's office dropped the lawsuit that sought information on voters who had put ballots in the California GOP drop boxes, telling reporters in a statement, 'We are confident that this election was safe and secure in California - as it was across the country.' In the aftermath of the controversy, Tygh told KTTV that the initial furor over his tweet had heavy negative consequences for him personally. As the California GOP and state officials pointed fingers at each other, Tygh, a Coast Guard veteran, told KTTV he was caught in the middle. Here's what Tygh told KTTV: 'We were told that we were going to be doing ballot harvesting operations, that we were gonna have these boxes in our office for people to come and drop the ballots off that we could harvest ourselves and bring to the registrar of voters,' Tygh said. 'The program was heavily vetted by the GOP attorneys so there was never any question in my mind as a low-level operative that this was something illegal or criminal.' Tygh's tweet, however, ended up going viral for all the wrong reasons. 'Twitter started going out of control, people were accusing me of setting up a fake ballot box, accusing me of a felony, and I was alerting my supervisors to this like look this is getting a lot of attention,' he said. 'We've got to do something about this. They told me to keep my head down, that the Democrats were just trying to intimidate me and everything was good, everything was legal.' But Tygh says the California GOP waited more than a day to announce the ballots were their operation and told him to keep his head down. 'They weren't coming public or admitting it, so a lot of those initial stories were about me as an individual, that I was this criminal, election fraudster setting up these illegal ballots,' Tygh said. The drop boxes were later deemed to be legal in court. And while the California Attorney General's Office did launch an investigation into GOP's use of the boxes, the investigation was dropped and no charges were filed after the GOP agreed to stop labeling the boxes as 'official.' Nevertheless, Tygh told KTTV, the controversy sullied his reputation. 'A lot of people won't touch me, I've had all these false accusations, it's affected my social life, people think I'm a criminal,' Tygh told KTTV. 'I would rather lose an election than cheat one, when I joined the military I took an oath to defend the constitution, and even though I'm out now, the oath still stands.'Recent Updates Update/Correction: California authorities have dropped legal actions taken against the state GOP over the ballot boxes. Updated to note that a judge rejected an attempt by state authorities to get the California GOP to comply with a subpoena seeking information about the boxes, and that state Republicans replaced signs on boxes that said 'official.'

nan

Dolly Parton publicly criticized Hillary Clinton and endorsed Donald Trump.

Neutral

On 12 September 2016, the disreputable clickbait American News web site published a misleading article reporting that renowned country singer Dolly Parton has 'trash(ed) Hillary Clinton in amazingly epic fashion': Dolly Parton has long been one of America's most legendary singing and songwriting talents. Until recently, she was fairly liberal, and a big supporter of Hillary Clinton. In a statement not long ago, Parton said she was inspired that a woman might be President for the first time in our nation's history. 'We're doing good,' she commented at the time. 'We got a woman that could go in the White House, so we've certainly come a long way in that respect.'Recently, Parton saw the light and realized that Hillary would be quite possible the worst person to be the champion for woman throughout the nation. She now understands that Hillary is a liar; she's as corrupt as they come. Recently, Parton saw the light and realized that Hillary would be quite possible the worst person to be the champion for woman throughout the nation. She now understands that Hillary is a liar; she's as corrupt as they come. In a more recent interview, she called Hillary 'nuts' and that her campaign has been 'just crazy.' The American News article used portions of a real interview Parton gave to CNN on 26 August 2016, presenting quotes from that interview inaccurately and out of context. For instance, Parton didn't say that Hillary was 'nuts' and that her campaign was 'just crazy.' What the singer actually said was that she thought both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were 'nuts' and that the entire presidential campaign had been 'crazy': Country music legend Dolly Parton might be undecided on whom to back in the presidential race, but there's one thing she's certain of. 'It's the greatest show on television right now,' she told CNN's Brooke Baldwin, laughing, in an interview. The 70-year-old 'Jolene' singer, who embarks on a 60-date North American tour to support her new album, 'Pure and Simple,' also didn't hold back when asked about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Q: 'Where do you stand on this election?' A: 'I just don't know. It's just the greatest show on television right now. You can't not watch it, even if it's Fox television or CNN or whatever you're watching. But it's just crazy, right now I'm just not sure. It's the biggest reality show out there. So I don't know where we're going to land, but I think they're both nuts.' Joking that 'it's like watching the OJ Simpson trial,' Parton said 'You just believe whoever's up next. Whoever testified last is who you believe.' Dolly Parton on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: 'I think they're both nuts.' https://t.co/sD2OiPw5ZE https://t.co/Ynw2VZjR4G - CNN (@CNN) August 26, 2016 The country legend opined that overall, we should focus on more important issues: 'Let's talk about what we really need - taking care of us. I think people just want to have a feeling of security. It's just like political terrorism right now, they got us all scared to death about everything.'Dan Evon dolly parton Donald Trump hillary clinton Sources Ellefson, Lindsey. 'Dolly Parton Tells CNN's Baldwin That Trump and Clinton Are 'Both Nuts'.' Mediate. 26 August 2016. King, Alexandra. 'Dolly Parton on 2016 candidates: 'I Think they're Both Nuts.'' CNN. 26 August 2016.

nan