Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal.
President Donald Trump made public a letter from his tax attorneys on May 12 saying Trumps tax returns from the past decade contain no undisclosed income from Russian sources. That same day, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., found what was a too-good-to-pass-up irony about the firm Trump used to write the letter. Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal, Murphy said in a May 12tweet. The post was certainly popular -- it has been retweeted 56,000 times as of the writing of this fact-check. It also elicited an eye-rolling .GIF from Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn. Law firm@POTUSused to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal. Given the continued interest in possible links between Trump and Russia, we decided to look into Murphys statement. Trumpstaxlawyersare partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Morgan Lewis, which employs some 2,000 attorneys in 30 cities around the world, including 40 lawyers and staff in Moscow. In the May 12letter, Trumps attorneys generally downplayed the presidents ties to Russia, and said Trumps tax returns from the past decade contain no undisclosed income from Russian sources. Murphy is correct that Morgan Lewis was once named the Russia Law Firm of the Year. This award was bestowed in 2016 by Chambers & Partners, a reputable source of law firm rankings, which cited the firms work in Russias energy, finance and technology sectors. Murphys spokesman, Chris Harris, also pointed us toan itemon Morgan Lewis website trumpeting the accolade, calling it a prestigious honor that recognizes its Russia offices excellence in client service, strategic growth and other achievements. Elsewhere on Morgan Lewis website the firmboastsabout its Moscow office, saying Our lawyers are well known in the Russian market, and have deep familiarity with the local legislation, practices, and key players. So Murphy is basically right on the facts: (1) Trump did use a letter from his Morgan Lewis tax attorneys to downplay Russia ties, (2) Morgan Lewis was named Russia Law Firm of the Year, and (3) the firm has extensive Russia ties. That said, it would be wrong to conclude that by hiring Morgan Lewis, Trump shares the firms extensive Russia ties. Thats unproven. A Morgan Lewis spokesman toldABC Newsnone of the firms attorneys have handled any business dealings for Trump in Russia. The spokesman added that Trumps tax attorney, Sheri Dillon, has never been to Russia and does no work there. The reality is, beyond a laugh line, theres not much people should read into Murphys statement. By the same logic, for instance, Trumps tough talk toward Germany would potentially be undermined by the fact his tax attorneys work in a firm that operates an office inFrankfurt. And unless Murphy were willing to credit Trump forMorgan Lewis progressive telecommuting policyto help working parents, his position would lack coherence. Murphy said, Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal. While any suggestion Trump shares the law firm's extensive ties is unproven, Murphy has the basic facts correct. The tax attorneys Trump has used to minimize his Russia ties are partners at Morgan Lewis, the 2016 Russia Law Firm of the Year, which boasts significant work in Russia. The firm, however, says that Trumps lawyer has done no work in Russia. We rate Murphys statement Mostly True.
Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True. In their third and final gubernatorial debate on Oct. 25, 2010, Rick Scott and Alex Sink traded accusations that each has been party to fraud.Sink again hammered Scott for his time running Columbia/HCA and the hospital company's convictions and $1.7 billion in fines for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. But this time Scott countered with allegations that Sink was the president of NationsBank operations in Florida when that company was accused of fraud and forced to pay government fines and settle a class-action lawsuit.Unlike Scott, Sink said she had what amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card.That case, the lawyer that brought that case -- it was a class-action case against another company -- he even has said publicly that Alex Sink had nothing to do with the case, had nothing to do with the situation and didn't know about the problems, Sink told CNN's John King and theSt. Petersburg Times'Adam C. Smith, the debate's moderators. What more can I say?In a separate item, we dealt with Scott's accusations. You can read that item,here. In this fact check, we'll explore Sink's rebuttal.Some quick background about the case. In 1994, while Sink was president of NationsBank's Florida operations, a stock broker with bank subsidiary NationsSecurities came forward with what he described as an orchestrated nationwide scheme to get bank customers to move investments from safe, federally insured accounts to more risky brokerage and mutual funds.NationsSecurities broker David Cray, who worked in Florida, said the bank intentionally blurred the lines between its traditional banking business and its securities business and misled customers into thinking those securities investments were protected by the bank or the federal government. The scheme permeated the entire bank, Cray, and later others, said. Brokers were given sales scripts to try to convince bank customers to move their money into more risky securities.NationsSecurities branch managers encouraged employees to use fear to sell securities. In one orientation sales meeting, a manager suggested that a broker could ask customers: Is this your risky money or safe money? If this is risky, I know a guy at Merrill or Dean Witter.And NationsBank helped NationsSecurities by providing brokers with lists of customers who had Certificates of Deposit about to mature.The bank and stock brokers pushed the mutual funds because they received more lucrative fees, Cray said.The allegations led to a class-action lawsuit from investors who lost money by unknowingly making the risky investments, which in the end lost money. The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission also began investigations. Eventually, NationsBank and NationsSecurities settled the investigations, agreeing to pay $8.1 million to investors in 2002, paying civil fines to the federal government of $6.75 million in 2000 and $6.4 million in 2002 and $4 million to the SEC in 1998. No criminal charges were ever filed.Sink says the lawyer who started the case, Jonathan Alpert of Tampa, has said Sink had nothing to do with the scheme.Here's what Alpert told theSt. Petersburg TimesandMiami Heraldin October when previously asked about Sink's role in selling the risky investments.Alex Sink could've done nothing about it. It was run out of Charlotte, said Alpert, referring to NationsBank's headquarters. I know she knew what was going on - that investments were being sold in the bank -- but that's it. And she was powerless to stop it, anyway. I had e-mails where the state presidents were being told what to do, that they had to help the securities people. They would dig into customers bank accounts to identify people who had enough money to buy securities. Charlotte said: 'This is what's going to happen in your bank lobbies and this is the way it's going to be.' They didn't say you're going to do A, B, C and D, they would say the bank cooperates fully with NationsSecurities, Alpert said. If Alex Sink were involved in it, it would be a wonderful story for the gubernatorial election. But she didn't know anything about it.Alpert, who said he voted for Sink, said she no doubt knew that riskier investments were being sold in the bank, but that she was likely not aware of the way brokers were manipulating customers to close the sales. And Sink has previously told theTimesshe had no authority or control over the securities sales. There were very, very strict firewalls between any kind of securities and brokerage operations and operations of commercial banking, she said. Those firewalls, Sink said, were the result of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking. (The act was repealed in 1999.) But that didn't prevent Sink from finding out what was going on in her bank, noted Yale University finance expert Jonathan Macey. She's the state bank president, he said. She has the authority and perhaps the responsibility to know what's going on in her lobby. The original whistle-blower in the case, former NationsSecurity broker Cray, said, I would tend not to point the finger at Alex Sink for this. Which brings us back to her statement. At the CNN/St. Petersburg Timesdebate Sink said that the lawyer who brought the case against NationsBank said publicly that Alex Sink had nothing to do with the case, had nothing to do with the situation and didn't know about the problems. We think Sink is mostly quoting the lawyer in the NationsBank case, Jonathan Alpert, accurately. Alpert said Sink wasn't involved in the deceptive selling of more risky involvements through NationsSecurities and didn't know anything about the deceptive practices being employed. The companies NationsBank and NationsSecurities were managed separately. But Sink did know securities were being sold in her banks, and was in a position to voice questions or concerns about the practice if she sensed anything was being handled inappropriately. That's enough of a connection in our minds to knock this claim down one notch, and rate it Mostly True. In late January 2016, Facebook users began sharing a post that promiseda $200 coupon for the Wegmanssupermarket chain to users who completed a short series of steps.  In July 2019, social media users began encountering a similar offer for an $80 coupon:  The embedded links in those posts pointed to a URL not associated with Wegmans.Userswho attempted to complete the steps andclaim thecoupon were directed toa page that resembledcontent hosted on Facebook,but its URL didn't matchthe social network's. The landing page was familiar to all who had encountered similar scams in the past:   Wegmans'official Facebook page warned customers about the coupon scam:  A Better Business Bureauarticle provided shoppers tips about avoiding survey and coupon scams operating in that fashion: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 15, 2020  the day after the U.S. Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden as America's 46th President  the tweet displayed below alleged Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Biden's victory over President Donald Trump before U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did. U.S. Electoral College Joe Biden tweet Donald Trump  The claim was accurate, and we unpack why below. It followed weeks of both leaders' remaining quiet on the election's outcome amid court battles and an aggressive misinformation campaign by Trump to try to overturn his loss. misinformation campaign Let us lay out the timeline. At 10:20 a.m. Moscow standard time, which is 2:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) in the U.S., on Dec. 15, the Kremlin released a statement in which Putin congratulated Biden on winning the presidential race and wished him "every success." The statement read: released a statement In his message, Vladimir Putin wished the President-elect every success and expressed confidence that Russia and the United States, which bear special responsibility for global security and stability, can, despite their differences, effectively contribute to solving many problems and meeting challenges that the world is facing today. The President of Russia noted that with this in mind, Russian-American cooperation, based on the principles of equality and mutual respect, would meet the interests of both nations and the entire international community. 'For my part, I am ready for interaction and contacts with you,' Russias Head of State stressed. Hours later, McConnell, a Republican, acknowledged the victory for Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for the first time in a prepared speech on the Senate floor. Kamala Harris According to a video of the remarks on the Majority Leader's YouTube channel  footage that was uploaded to the video platform around 11 a.m. EST and also appeared on his official website as a Kentucky senator  McConnell said: official website as a Kentucky senator The Electoral College has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden. The President-elect is no stranger to the Senate. He has devoted himself to public service for many years. I also congratulate the Vice President-elect, our colleague from California, Senator Harris. Beyond our differences, all Americans can take pride that our nation has a female Vice President-elect for the first time. News outlets, including MSNBC, first reported on McConnell's remarks around 10:20 a.m. (ET). A tweet from McConnell's press team with a link to the YouTube video posted less than 30 minutes later, at 10:47 a.m. tweet   Some onlookers on social media speculated McConnell purposefully waited for Putin's statement on the election before making his own. "It has always been Putin pulling their strings, not Trump," one Twitter user alleged, referring to Republican leadership. Twitter user But there was no evidence to explicitly explain why or under what rationale the senator made his comments on the Senate floor, congratulating Biden more than a month after he was announced the next head of the White House. Also unknown was if or to what extent he at all considered Putin's statement hours prior signifying a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations.  All of that said, the Kentucky Republican recognized a Biden presidency roughly eight hours after the Russian leader. For that reason, we rate this claim President Joe Bidens proposal for an$1.9 trillion economic rescue packagecalls for more than doubling the federal minimum wage, which was last raised over a decade ago. The plan has stirred up online chatter about the impact of a proposed $15-an-hour federal rate, with one conservative commentator warning that it would send prices soaring. If you want $15 minimum wage, dont complain when your Taco Bell order costs $38 for a burrito, said Jordan Rachel, a Turning Point USA contributor,in a Jan. 16 tweet. Business groups have long opposed sharply higher minimum wages on the grounds that they would hurt employment and raise consumer prices. But $38 for a burrito? That seemed like a hefty price at any restaurant, let alone a fast-food chain like Taco Bell, which still has several $1 items on its value menu. So PolitiFact decided to put Rachels claim to the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to Turning Point USA and a spokesperson for Charlie Kirk, the organizations founder, about Rachels claim, and we got no response. Soon after we sent our inquiries, Rachels tweet about Taco Bell disappeared from the platform. We did, however, hear back from Taco Bell. The company, part of the Yum! Brands family of restaurant chains, told us that it already does business in places where local laws set a higher wage than the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum. In those places, burrito prices havent skyrocketed. Taco Bell and our franchisees have already adapted to many minimum wage increases on a local level, and we are committed to maintaining our leadership in value on a national level, Taco Bell said in a statement to PolitiFact. For example, at our company-owned restaurants in New York City, where the minimum wage is $15 an hour, our Bean Burrito is $1.89 plus tax and Crunchwrap Supreme is $4.49 plus tax. Several economists we talked to described Rachels warning about $38 burritos as far from accurate and easily countered by evidence. A price of $38 is clearly absurd, said Orley Ashenfelter, a Princeton University economist who has used the price of McDonalds Big Mac sandwiches to compare wages worldwide. The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 per hour since 2009, but 29 states and Washington, D.C., haveminimum wagesabove the federal level, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures. Some cities and counties have already bumped their rates to $15 or higher. And arecent reportfrom the National Employment Law Project said that by the end of 2021, 40 more cities and counties will have a minimum wage at or above $15 than at the end of 2020. Efforts to increase the federal rate haveacceleratedin recent years. The House in 1999 voted to raise the hourly minimum to $15 by 2025  the bill stalled in the Senate  and Bidenpromisedduring his campaign to seek a $15 floor. That pledge made its way into Bidens coronavirus relief proposal released Jan. 14. On Jan. 15, some 1,000 fast-food workerswent on striketo protest low wages. They and other proponents of raising the minimum wage say doing so would lift low-income workers out of poverty, while opponents warn of hamstringing businesses and forcing layoffs. Prices at Taco Bell restaurants and other chains vary by location. And experts said it would be reasonable to expect increased prices with a bump to a $15 federal minimum wage. But Rachels warning of a $38 burrito isnt supported by evidence. I can think of no economic justification that would lead to a prediction anywhere close to the estimate of a $38 Taco Bell burrito, said Steven Fazzari, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. A simple way to gauge the potential impact on prices is to look at places where the minimum wage is already $15 or more per hour, experts said. Plenty of cities work as benchmarks, including New York,Washington, D.C., Seattle and San Francisco. In San Francisco, for example, the minimum wage is $16.07 per hour. But the burrito prices there are not much different from cities with lower minimum wages. Sometimes theyre the same. Some of Taco Bells most expensive burritos show no price difference whatsoever between places with very high and very low minimum wages, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, who called Rachels claim easily disproven. Burtless compared prices for two different types of burritos at San Franciscos710 Third St. Taco Bellto prices for the same burritos at aTaco Bellin Alexandria, Va., where the states minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, equal to the federal minimum. In Alexandria, a Bean Burrito goes for $1.29, while a Burrito Supreme costs $4.19. At the San Francisco location, a Bean Burrito sells for $1.99, and a Burrito Supreme costs $4.19. Two screenshots from Taco Bell's website show the prices listed for a Bean Burrito and a Burrito Supreme at Taco Bell locations in Alexandria, Va., and San Francisco, on Jan. 20, 2021. The most expensive burrito on the menu, the Crunchwrap Supreme, costs $4.19 in Alexandria and $4.49 in San Francisco, a difference of about 7%. We find absolutely no evidence that a higher minimum wage will boost Taco Bell burrito prices by anything that comes remotely close to 807%, the price increase implicitly predicted by Jordan Rachel, Burtless said. Bryan Stuart, an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University, said burrito prices in major cities like New York City and San Francisco likely represent an upper bound on the average burrito price if the federal minimum wage goes to $15. Thats because the price of a Taco Bell burrito depends on more than just worker salaries. The price of burritos depends on the cost of land, taxes, etc., and many of these costs are higher in cities that have a minimum wage at or above $15, Stuart said. Ashenfelter, the Princeton economist, said labor costs represent between 20% and 30% of the final consumer price. He said new research of his, on McDonalds wages and Big Mac prices, estimated that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would raise Big Mac prices by 1.4%. That suggests that Taco Bell burritos could cost more in some places under Bidens proposal  which would increase the federal minimum by more than 100%  but nowhere near $38. Rachel said a $15-an-hour minimum wage would raise the price of a Taco Bell burrito to $38. This claim is countered by available evidence, including the current burrito prices at Taco Bell locations in cities and counties where a $15 minimum wage is in effect. Four economists characterized the claim as a far-off estimate at odds with economic theory. We rate Rachels statement False. A big part of the mayoral campaign of Paul Vallas relies on his six-year record as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools under former Mayor Richard Daley. And the theme that Vallas often falls back on is that he was a turnaround specialist who revived a very troubled school system and left it in better financial and academic shape than he found it. I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today, Vallas declared in a New Years Eve interviewon WGN radio. Ive always been a problem-solver. My approach has always been to go in, bring financial stability to the systems that Ive taken responsibility for, design budgets that are long-term financial plans that actually invest in the community to generate growth. Vallas is facing a crowded field of contenders in next months city elections to replace the retiring Rahm Emanuel as mayor, and the flagging condition of the citys public schools will be sure to present a major test for whichever candidate prevails. Having a proven track record as a school fix-it specialist could be a big plus for Vallas. But how valid are his claims? We decided to take a look. Vallas claims raise two questions. First, whether his basic facts check out. Second, whether they can be credited to his leadership. News clips and columns from the Vallas era at CPS, which began in 1995, back up the first beat of his claim. They note that district leaders had projected before he took over that CPS was on track to run a deficit of more than $1 billion by 1999. Under Vallas, that huge deficit never materialized, and district financial records he pointed to show that by his last year at the helm in 2001 CPS claimed a positive balance of nearly $1 billion in all of its financial accounts. But can Vallas credit his policy decisions entirely for that transformation? Not exactly. In 1995, lawmakers in Springfield turned over control of the district, which was facing one of many financial crises, to Mayor Richard M. Daley. He named Vallas, who had been serving as his budget director, chief executive officer. Daley also appointed Gery Chico, now a mayoral opponent of Vallas, as school board president. But the new guard at CPS also got to play by a different set of financial rules. Instead of receiving state aid earmarked for specific purposes, for example, the district started getting a significant amount of funding in the form of a block grant. Another big change that helped un-tie its fiscal hands: Lawmakers allowed property tax dollars, which had previously flowed directly into the pension fund for teachers, to go to CPS instead. And in 1997, legislators permitted the district to forego payments into the pension fund provided it hit benchmarks signifying sound fiscal health. He was not operating under the same conditions as the CEO that existed prior to 1995, said Amanda Kass, associate director of the Government Finance Research Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago. During Vallas six years with the district, and for several years following his tenure, CPS paid next to nothing toward teacher pension costs. The Vallas era at CPS coincided with the dot.com bubble that sent markets soaring, helping the pension fund stay healthy even without the annual injections of cash it began missing out on. Had Springfield not changed the law, the CPS teacher pension fund would have been paid$90millionin 1995 to cover the employer share of pension costs that year. Instead, it got $10 million. Over the next decade, the fund was out$2billion. We asked Vallas in a phone interview why he opted to stop pension payments. The system was earning such strong returns, it didnt require that we make contributions during those few years, he explained. Kass said its considered best practice for local governments to continue employer share contributions regardless of the financial health of pension funds  something the 1997 law did not require. Had CPS continued contributions during the Vallas years, the pension fund would have had more cushion to weather the financial recessions that hit in 2001 and again in 2008, she explained. That said, Kass added that her observations come with the benefit of hindsight after watching the pension fund balance worsen dramatically after Vallas left and his successors continued to put off payments even as the funds fiscal viability declined. I do think that Vallas inherited a challenging situation, Kass said, noting that ratings of CPS bonds improved significantly during his tenure and enabled a system all but shut out of the credit markets to begin borrowing again. In short, CPS was on the financial ropes before Vallas took over but made significant fiscal strides under him. Changes in state law, however, gave him far more financial flexibility to operate than his predecessors. In touting his success as CEO, Vallas also pointed to the size of the district under his watch compared with much-diminished enrollment figures of today. Enrollment is important as a symbol of how attractive CPS is to families of school age children, but it also carries real financial weight because the fewer students attending classes the less state aid the district gets. Vallas numbers are roughly accurate. CPS enrollment stood at nearly 425,000 when he left the district, but now sits at about 361,000,stateandCPS figuresshow. But in using enrollment data as a measuring stick of his success, Vallas ignores significant demographic changes in the city since his time at CPS that render such a comparison misleading. Chicago saw a period of population growth in the 1990s due in large part to a substantial increase in immigrants, largely from Mexico. With that increase in immigration came an influx of students into CPS, said Chicago demographer Rob Paral. The stuff going on demographically today is quite different than the forces that were in play in the 90s, he said. Chicago was a huge magnet for all that 90s immigration. In the years after Vallas left CPS, the immigrant population of the city stopped growing and the African-American population began a significant decline. Minority students make up about 90 percent of CPS enrollment, so the changing demographics had a significant impact at the schools. Vallas said, I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today. The bond rating and bottom line at CPS did improve significantly under Vallas, but new laws passed in Springfield also removed fiscal handcuffs which gave him more flexibility to manage the districts finances than his predecessors enjoyed. And he is correct that CPS has nearly 70,000 fewer students today than in 2001 when he departed. But that is due at least in part to significant demographic changes in Chicago outside the control of any schools chief. His claim is accurate but requires additional information to understand the context. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click herefor moreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Photographs show female hunters posing with the bodies of giraffes they've killed. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Facebook has recently been inundated with pictures of women hunters posed with dead giraffes. Are they fake or real?  Origins:  Earlier this year as we were trekking through Africa, we passed through Tanzania to investigate some animal-related legends and visit a place that has loomed large in our imaginations ever since we were children: the Serengeti. It was everything we imagined it to be, and more: endless herds of zebra and buffalo stretching across the plains  as far as the eye could see, prides of lions snoozing under trees, elephants with their calves parading across our path, rhinoceros slowly lumbering along the landscape, huge pools in which hundreds of hippos lazed to escape the midday sun, as well aswarthogs, mongooses, hyenas, impala, gazelles, dik-diks, hyrax, and baboons. Tour operators in that part of the world typically tout that their clients will have an opportunity to view the "Big Five" of African wildlife: the African lion, the African elephant, the Cape buffalo, the African leopard, and the rhinoceros (black or white).  We were fortunate enough to see all of these creatures (and more), and to be able to shoot them from up close  with cameras only  includingthe one animal that's hardest to miss:  We were somewhat surprised to learn during our trip that the term "Big Five" derives not from the world of tourism (which has co-opted it), but from the world of big-game hunting: it is said to encompass the five African animals most difficult to hunt on foot.  We were more surprised to learn that, despite widespread public perception that the "Big Five" (and most other large African wildlife) are all endangered and/or protected by law, there are very few African animals that cannot be legally hunted somewhere on that continent. We were reminded of our experience in April 2015, when comedian Ricky Gervais posted to his Facebook page a photograph purportedly showing a female hunter posing in recline alongside the carcass of a giraffe she had just killed, along with his rumination about why someone would "want to kill a beautiful animal and then lie next to it smiling":  The comedian didn't provide much background information in his Facebook post, which led many viewers to speculate about the authenticity of the photo. Was the scene staged with a giraffe that died from other causes?  Was the giraffe put down for humane reasons? Was the image Photoshopped?  The photograph that Gervais shared has originally appeared on the website RebeccaFrancis.com in August 2010. Although that site did not provide any specific information about that particular image, the site is full of pictures of animals killed in African big game hunts, including lions, zebras, and giraffes. Francis addressed the controversy of being a "big game hunter" in a blog entitled "The True Circle of Hunting": RebeccaFrancis.com pictures As a hunter, I am constantly under fire and constantly being labeled a "trophy hunter". What is a trophy hunter?  I have put a great deal of thought into the meaning of this.  In the dictionary the literal meaning is simply put: "Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals".  In that case, I AM A TROPHY HUNTER.   There is no question that I am extremely selective about the animals I hunt.   I feel it is absolutely necessary to hunt older and more mature animals.  In a lot of cases, that puts that animal past it's breeding prime and the animal can actually be kicked out of the herd and replaced with a younger, stronger male to introduce new genetics into the gene pool. Consequently, that animal can not only be bullied by the new male, but also be left all alone to suffer until its inevitable death. I have no desire to shoot an animal, just to shoot it.  I admire, respect, and love watching these beautiful creatures. Ricky Gervais subsequently posted a second photograph on his Facebook page of a female hunter posing with a dead giraffe :  While the specific origins of this photograph are unknown to us, the earliest incarnation we've found appears to have originated with the now-defunct Facebook page of one "Ivy Swanepol":  A similar photograph of a grinning woman posing astride a dead giraffe while holding a high-powered rifle in her hands generated online controversy in March 2014 when it was posted to the Facebook page of Koeshall's World Hunting Adventures taxidermy shop in Wisconsin along with a caption  "We took Shelley out this morning with the thoughts of maybe getting a giraffe. We found this big bull feeding in the trees, and Shelley put 2 good shots in him before he went down. Big mature bull. We have it all here, and we want to share it with YOU": posted  Regardless of who is pictured in these photographs, there is no good reason to believe that they are not genuine or do not represent what they appear to depict, as giraffes are indeed one of the trophy animals frequently targeted in African big game hunts. Big Game Hunting Adventures of South Africa, for instance, offers safaris on which hunters can bag (among other animals)baboons, hyenas, buffalo, elephants, giraffe, hippos, impala, leopards, lions, warthogs, wildebeest, and zebras.   safaris Although many animal lovers and wildlife protection groups may decry African big game hunts, they are perfectly legal in places such as South Africa.  Moreover, some conservationists have argued that this form of tourism actually helps their cause by providing much-needed revenue for the preservation of more endangered species in the region: South Africa has a tourism industry that permits people to hunt big game animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros and lion.  Many people object to this blood sport.  But some argue that hunting big game animals creates income needed to save the country's population of big animals. It is legal in some African countries to hunt big game.  The business brings in a lot of money.  A ten-day 'elephant package' could cost U.S. $36,000.  Hunting a rhinoceros can cost U.S. $100,000. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has strong words against what it calls the "needless killing of endangered species for trophies."  The organization says big game hunting is not sustainable, meaning it cannot be supported over a long period of time.  The group also says it provides only short-term economic gains, hurts the area's environmental balance and is morally wrong. But not all conservationists agree.  Some argue trophy hunting may be helping Africa's wildlife.  Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa.  He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed. "I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa ... there's hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run ... Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos." The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year.  The industry employs about 70,000 people.  And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year.  Ninety percent of them come from the United States.  In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa.  Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country. Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa.  He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection. "The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that, and that is the trophy hunter." One can find plenty of photographs of male big game hunters posing with taken giraffes online, but those images apparently don't stir up as much widespread outrage as similar pictures showing female hunters. photographs Last updated:  14 April 2015    Parker, Gilliam.  "Trophy Hunting Is Big Business in South Africa."   VOA.  16 August 2014. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree: The IRS screwed up, big time, when it watched for phrases like tea party to trigger extra scrutiny of groups seeking tax-exempt status. But theres a partisan disagreement over whether it was merely an ill-conceived time-saver for overworked Ohio staffers or a sinister White House plot to hamstring conservative groups before an election. (It's the IRS targeting-gate! said New York Republican Tom Reed.) Rep. Sander Levin, a long-serving Democrat whos the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, said after a May 17 hearing that evidence is on Democrats side. My view is that the criteria were very inappropriate, he told MSNBC host Chris Matthews. There was terrible mismanagement. I think there was very terrible oversight. ... But the IG, the inspector general, when asked, Was there any political motivation for the people who were in the exempt organization in Cincinnati, the lower-level people who were working on this, he said no. Was there any outside influence? And he said no. Theinspector general for tax administrationis charged withindependent oversightof the IRS. Did he say there was no political motivation or outside influence driving the agencys inappropriate behavior? Inappropriate criteria The latest round of congressional hearings  and there will be more  kicked off after the May 14 release of amildly titled auditfrom the inspectors office: Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review. It asked whether the IRS:  Targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status. Delayed processing of targeted groups applications. Requested unnecessary information from targeted groups, such as donor lists. It found that Cincinnati employees did all of those things, beginning in early 2010. A determinations unit there reviews applications for tax-exempt status for various kinds of organizations  such as charities and nonprofit schools and hospitals. It ran into trouble with applications for501(c)(4)status  a designation that allows a tax-exempt group whose primary activity is social welfare to engage in political activity without disclosing its donors. In theory, a group whose primary activity was actually political activity  such as supporting candidates for office wouldnt qualify. So IRS employees developed criteria to identify and group applications from organizations likely to engage in political activity for a deeper look. But regulations dont define how to measure a groups primary activity. So, according to the report, amid confusion, three inappropriate things happened. For months, employees used phrases such as tea party, patriots, 9/12 and political-sounding names such as we the people, or take back the country to group applications for special review. The criteria got more generic in 2011, then more specific again in mid 2012, including political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement. Most of those applications languished for more than a year as employees sorted out how to handle them. Then it sent lengthy, probing questionnaires to many applicants, requesting detailed responses, such as lists of all donations and donors, whether any leaders or donors had run for office or would in the future, and lists of all issues important to the organization and its position on those issues. The basic result was that while none of those groups had their applications denied, more than half of them waited more than 200 days  and some as long as three years, across two election cycles. Some are still awaiting decisions. Auditors asked various IRS leaders and employees in Cincinnati and Washington whether anyone outside the IRS influenced the inappropriate criteria. They found the opposite: that one problem was insufficient high-level oversight. Specifically, only first-line management approved references to the tea party, the report said. However, interviews with employees in the Cincinnati office didnt turn up exactly who had been involved in creating the criteria, the report said. Inspector general Since the audit, lawmakers have repeatedly brought in the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, to testify about the findings of his auditors. Levins staff pointed us to this exchange before Ways and Means, when the congressman asked George to clarify the audits results on outside influence and political motivation: Levin:On page 7, Mr. George, of the IG report it states and all of these individuals stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS. Is that correct? George:That is the information we received, correct. Levin:Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications? George:We did not, sir. Its important to note that George is careful to say that information gathered during the audit didnt point to outside influence or political motivation  not that he was certain it had been ruled out. He was similarly careful in his responses that day to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and later, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.: McDermott:The inspector general report says that no one acted out of malice or political motivation. Mr. George, I want to know, do you still stand by that? George:We have no evidence at this time to contradict that assertion, sir. ...  Kind:According to your report, you found no bias or partisanship behind the development and the use of the criteria for selecting applications in the Cincinnati office. Is that right? George:That is correct, sir, but we did find gross mismanagement in the overall  Kind:Right. And that's clear in your report, too. Did you find any evidence that anyone outside of the IRS was involved in the development and review of  George:Not at this time, sir. Kind:Not the White House or Treasury? George:That's correct, sir. Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., pointed out that day that Georges office had conducted an audit, but not yet an investigation. There's a reason you don't know who came up with this. You didn't investigate that, he said. Indeed, George clarified for lawmakers in the days after Levins MSNBC interview that auditorsdidnt ask directlyabout White House involvement, because no evidence pointed that direction. He also distinguished between an audit  designed to uncover systemic problems  and an investigation, which focuses on misconduct by specific people. It is not uncommon for audits to present specific issues that lead to additional reviews or investigations, he said. Our ruling Levin told Matthews on MSNBC that, the inspector general, when asked, Was there any political motivation for the people who were in the exempt organization in Cincinnati, the lower-level people who were working on this, he said no. Was there any outside influence? And he said no. That was the gist of Georges testimony the same day before the Ways and Means Committee, but with the important clarification that he was careful to explain that the assessment was based solely on evidence turned up so far by auditors. Levin offered no such caveat. We rate his claim Mostly True. Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while stumping for his wife in Los Angeles this week: Americas mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, which trails only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. Its often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the countrys economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt such a big issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. But they werent the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time. Republicans said they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs, and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have let people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 refinance at 3.86 percent, the article said. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, or $50 billion. Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a campaign stop for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at the West End Community Development Center in Greenville, S.C. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) Our research As theyve campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. But doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Also, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But theres no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan to another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers. PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton said at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and theres no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have helped. We rated his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014.