Was a penalty imposed on Donald Trump for allegedly misappropriating funds designated for veterans?
In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "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. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose daily press briefings on the states battle against the coronavirus have drawn wide coverage, has extended his rhetorical reach through social media. On April 12, Cuomo took to Twitter to spotlight what he saw as a disparity in federal funding between New York and states that had fewer coronavirus cases. Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case. New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case, Cuomotweeted. Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case.New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case.We need a fair federal stimulus bill that is distributed by need. We found that the statement relies on a credible study of how one part of the federal funding is being divided among the states, though it glosses over the fact that its counting money going to health care providers directly, rather than to the states themselves. The number of coronavirus cases changes by day, and even by the hour. But at the time he made his claim, Cuomo was correct to say the difference between New York and the other two states was lopsided. New York has been hardest hit by the coronavirus.On April 12, the state reported a cumulative 195,031 known cases of the virus. Montana and Nebraska, which have far smaller populations, saw much smaller outbreaks of the virus at the time:Montana had 394reported cases, whileNebraska reported 792. The money Cuomo is referencing comes from the $2.2 trillion federal coronavirus aid package passed in March, known as the CARES Act. While that bill earmarked $150 billion directly for state, local and tribal governments, the breakdown Cuomo is referring to comes from a different provision that provides funds directly to hospitals and other health care providers. This portion of the CARES Act allocates up to $100 billion to health care providers. When Cuomo sent his tweet, $30 billion of that total had been distributed. According to the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, providers have received money from the stimulus bill based on a formula that involves how much money they received from Medicare reimbursements in 2019 (excluding payments under Medicare Advantage, which works through private insurers). HHS estimated that these Medicare reimbursements amounted to $484 billion in 2019. Because HHS wanted to push the first $30 billion of coronavirus aid out the door quickly, it allocated the money based on providers share of these reimbursements from 2019. In other words, the formula for this first stage of funding had nothing to do with the number of coronavirus cases a state was facing. Using these guidelines, Kaiser Health News, a PolitiFact fact-checking partner,calculated how much money providers in each state had received from the $30 billion. The publication based these numbers on a House Ways and Means Committee funds breakdown andNew York Times daily coronavirus numbers. The analysis was originally published two days before Cuomos tweet. According to Kaiser Health News published analysis, hospitals and providers in New York state were due to receive stimulus money amounting to $12,000 per coronavirus case at the time. Providers in states with fewer cases, such as Montana and Nebraska, had received over $300,000 per case, according to the analysis. So Cuomos tweet tracks what the Kaiser Health News analysis found, though its worth noting that the total amount given to New York providers in this initial round, nearly $1.9 billion, was significantly more than what went to the other states: about $111 million for Montana and $225 million for Nebraska, according to the authors of the analysis. Jack Hoadley, an emeritus professor at Georgetown Universitys Health Policy Institute, told PolitiFact New York that the Kaiser studys methodology was sound. He added that later rounds should address this imbalance. HHS has said that the next wave of the $100 billion will take into account how many coronavirus cases each state has. This should respond at least in part to the concern raised by Gov. Cuomo, he said, though more information is needed before we can assess the dollars-per-patient metric down the road. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of the Budget, told PolitiFact that the tweet relied on information from a Kaiser Health News article and quoted it nearly word for word. Theres no question that the facts are accurate and there is a disparity in the federal funding structure among states in this regard. Cuomo tweeted, Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case. New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case, In the first round of funding for health care providers, New York states providers received far less money per coronavirus case than other, less-affected states, according to a credible analysis. However, Cuomos tweet addressed only one part of the federal funding, and it glossed over the distinction between states and health care providers in those states. The funding source Cuomo tweeted about sends money to providers, not the state. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. On 18 April 2018 Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections: Newly Press meme   A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates:    However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented monies to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member: Roll Call A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the  midterm elections. Targeting [people of color, young people, and women] is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in the previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and dont build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative  which the coalition is calling Win Justice  are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization: Planned Parenthood Votes  Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend monies on political activities.   According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors: prohibited Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities which are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." involved stipulates The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." Super PAC In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law.  Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage is such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections. Bois, Paul.  "Planned Parenthood Spending $30 Million on Midterm Elections."
  Daily Wire.  18 April 2018. Bradner, Eric.  "First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to Target 8 States, Spend $20 Million as Part of Midterm Battle Plan."
  CNN.  1 March 2018. Connolly, Griffin.  "Planned Parenthood, Other Groups to Spend $30 Million on Midterms."
  Roll Call.  16 April 2018. Federal Election Commission.  "Types of Nonconnected PACs."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "Social Welfare Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Ballotpedia.  "Planned Parenthood Votes."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood.  "nformation For Attorneys And Other Professionals."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  "Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund Launch 2018 Electoral Program."
  1 March 2018. A set of gruesome photographs supposedly showing the aftermath of a "pico jackfruit snake" bite is frequently shared online. We'll be posting these photographs below. As they show a severe hand injury, this article may not suitable for all viewers. The photographs first went viral in August 2017 after they were posted to the Facebook group Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in New York. The first photograph in the set shows what appears to be a small cut on a person's thumb. Subsequent photographs show the injury worsening, due to the snake's venomous bite, until eventually the thumb is amputated. Again, the following photographs may not be suitable for all viewers:   We haven't been able to uncover too many specifics about these photographs, such as where they were taken or the identity of the snake-bit victim. When these images first started circulating on Facebook in 2017 (the original post has since been deleted), the snake was identified as a "sharp-nosed viper," not a "pico jackfruit snake."  In fact, we found no snake by the latter's name. It likely refers to a bushmaster snake, another genus of venomous pit-vipers, which is known by a variety of names across South America, such as the pineapple snake, the silent rattlesnake, and the stinging jackfruit.  Regardless of the specific species of snake, these photographs appear to provide a genuine look at the painful aftermath of a venomous snakebite. News.com.au talked to Brian Fry, an associate professor in the school of biological sciences at the University of Queensland, when these images first went viral:  News.com.au That type of snake [Sharp-nosed viper] has a venom that is extremely tissue destroying, Dr Fry told news.com.au. The reason for this is that they kill their prey by haemorrhagic shock, where some parts of the venom damage the blood vessel walls, while other parts destroy the ability of the blood to clot, leading to a state of massive internal bleeding in a prey animal. As Associate Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, Dr Fry said because it is a Chinese snake; antivenom for a bite like this might be hard to come by in remote areas. If it was in a private collection somewhere, they probably didnt have it and likely none of the nearby zoos would either, he explained. Thus, theyd have to suffer through the full effects. While we haven't been able to find much information about this specific set of photographs, we have found other snake-bite cases that resulted in similar injuries. A 2015 article from the BBC explained some of the science behind deadly venomous snake bites: cases resulted similar injuries BBC Snake venom is made up of several hundred proteins which all have a slightly different toxic effect on the human body. One snake's poison may not be like another's, even if they are from the same species. But, on the whole, there are two main ways snakes make us suffer  by attacking the circulatory system (ie. the blood) and/or the nervous system. Haemotoxic venom goes for the bloodstream. It can trigger lots of tiny blood clots and then when the venom punches holes in blood vessels causing them to leak, there is nothing left to stem the flow and the patient bleeds to death. Other venoms can increase blood pressure, decrease blood pressure, prevent bleeding or create it. They are all bad news. Neurotoxic venom tends to act more quickly, attacking the nervous system and stopping nerve signals getting through to the muscles. This means paralysis, starting at the head, moving down the body until, if untreated, the diaphragm is paralysed and the patient can't breathe. A classic sign of this is ptosis, when people can't keep their eyes open. Around the area of the bite, necrosis can set in. That happens when the venom destroys nearby muscles, tissues and cells. Long-term, this can lead to amputations, the loss of the use of a limb or the need for multiple skin grafts. In sum, the above photographs most likely show the gruesome aftermath of a snake bite, but because we were unable to uncover specific details about the pictures, we've rated this claim "Unproven." Brown, Vanessa.  "Horror Snake Bite Causes Victims Thumb to Turn Black Before Being Amputated"
  News.com.au.  15 August 2017. Weisberger, Mindy.  "What Should You Do If You're Bitten by a Venomous Snake?"
  Live Science.  2 June 2019. BBC.  "The amazing science behind fatal snake bites."
  13 September 2015. Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book,Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support ourselves or contribute financially to our familys bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say working woman as if she were an anomaly. We never say working man. There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to hone in on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited2013 Pew Research Center reportthat looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the familys income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. Thats quadruple what it was in 1960  11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't have kids. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report  especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. And the households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progressthat had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015. And 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though womens share of the labor forcegrew dramaticallythroughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of alack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling Ivanka Trump said, 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the familys income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True. In January 2017, a photograph appeared to show a poster on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., listing off early warning signs of looming fascism: In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE  Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017 January 30, 2017 The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list: shared checked The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits.  You can see a price tag in the bottom right corner of the viral image. Sarah Rose, who first shared the photograph on social media, confirmed to us that she took thepicture in the museum's gift shop. We reached out to the USHHM to confirm that it sold a poster showing "early warning signs of fascism," and they told us that themuseum no longer carries theposter. The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian: Laurence Britt said I've read this thread with interest. For your information I never made a claim that I was a "Dr." Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the artice. I am a retired bsunessman with a life long interst in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I've contributed chapters to three books, written another, and am working on a second. I've written aproximately 25 magazine and newespaper articles on political and econmic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interst in the subject. My novel, "June , 2004" was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.Regards, Larry Britt Britt created this list during George W. Bush's tenure as president of the United States. While he did not actually nameBush, he wrotein theoriginal articlethat some of the early warning signs had alreadymanifested in the United States: Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer: Syracuse Cultural Workers   Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco Franco's Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar's Portual, George Papadopoulos's Greece, August Pinochet's Chile, Mohamed Suharto's Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can! While it is true that this poster exists, it was not displayedtheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has since been removed from its gift shop. Riese, Monica.  "Holocaust Museum Poster on 'Warning Signs of Fascism' Goes Viral."   The Daily Dot.  30 January 2017. Britt, Lawrence.  "Fascism Anyone?"   Free Inquiry.  31 March 2003. The Right Stuff.  "14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular."   22 January 2014. As if Americans hadn't accumulated enough dark suspicions about their government over the past 50-odd years, along comes an Internet factoid holding that the United States government intentionally (and fatally) poisoned more than 10,000 of its own citizens between 1926 and 1933:   The alarming claim is that the U.S. government added poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it during Prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933 in which it was illegal to produce, transport, or sell alcoholic beverages anywhere in the United States. That didn't mean people stopped making, buying, and drinking booze  they just did it illegally. As noted in virtually every U.S. history textbook ever written, one of the many negative unintended consequences of Prohibition was a booming black market in alcohol that law enforcement was never able to subdue. Prohibition To the question at hand: Did the federal government really add poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it? It did, in fact. The government did purposely add poisonous substances to alcohol, and this did result in thousands of deaths during Prohibition. The story of how that came to pass is longer and more nuanced than the Internet meme suggests, however. And it began well before the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land. According to Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York (Penguin Press, 2010), the practice was called "denaturing". It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits. 2010 Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol ("wood alcohol") to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too awful to drink. One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition, Blum explained in a 2010 Slate article, was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous: article To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly. By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisonskerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be addedup to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly. TIME magazine's 2008 Prohibition retrospective described the horrendous consequences of an unregulated  and, in many instances, purposely adulterated  black-market liquor supply: retrospective It wasn't just the violent Prohibition-era gang wars that were dangerous to Americans drinking homemade moonshine and bathtub gin. According to the Dec. 26, 1922 edition of the New York Times, five people were killed in the city on Christmas Day from drinking "poisoned rum." That was only the beginning. By 1926, according to Prohibition, by Edward Behr, 750 New Yorkers perished from such poisoning and hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis. On New Year's Day 1927, 41 people died at New York's Bellevue Hospital from alcohol-related poisonings. Oftentimes, they were drinking industrial methanol, otherwise known as wood alcohol, which was a legal but extremely dangerous poison. One government report said that of 480,000 gallons of liquor confiscated in New York in 1927, nearly all contained poisons. Although it is inaccurate in the sense that none of this deadly business began in 1926, the factoid we set out to investigate wasn't entirely wrong in citing that year as a pivotal one. Blum points out that the spate of alcohol-related poisonings that culminated in so many fatalities on New Year's Day 1927 actually commenced a week earlier, on Christmas: It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat. Before hospital staff realized how sick he wasthe alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptomthe man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season. As for the claim that some 10,000 people died of alcohol poisoning during the course of Prohibition through its repeal in 1933, that, too, is a figure we can source to Blum (who did not, in the Slate article, specify where this estimate came from): Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people. In sum, federal attempts to reduce the palatability of industrial alcohol came well before Prohibition, and efforts to intensify the risks of consuming it were both well-known and controversial at the time. Such evidence as we've seen does not support the the implication that the government set out to purposely kill drinkers of alcohol, although Prohibition-era lawmakers and public health experts decried what they described as a callous disregard for those who died as result of drinking denatured alcohol. before known Andrews, Evan.  "10 Things You Should Know About Prohibition."
  History.  16 January 2015. Blum, Deborah.  "The Chemist's War."
  Slate.  19 February 2010. Damrau, Frederic, M.D.  "The Truth About Poison Liquor."
  Popular Science Monthly.  April 1927. Norris, Charles, M.D.  "Our Essay In Extermination."
  The North American Review.  December 1928. Rothman, Lily.  "The History of Poisoned Alcohol Includes an Unlikely Culprit: The U.S. Government."
  TIME.  14 January 2015. TIME.  "Top 10 Prohibition Tales: Mortal Moonshine."
  2008. Chicago Tribune.  "Alcohol Gets Double Poison Ration Jan. 1."
  30 December 1926. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here A widely circulated poem dedicated to the work of law enforcement was shared more than 125,000 times in late summer 2020 after the original user insinuated that actor Kurt Russell had shared it  and with it his alleged opposition to defunding the police.  "The Badge" went viral in the months following the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while in police custody. Protesters in the wake of Floyds death called for the defunding of police in an effort to redirect funds to make law enforcement training more robust and increase social services for communities that face a greater risk of police brutality and incarceration. George Floyd defunding of police   We looked into the poem and found no evidence Russell is connected to it in any way, or that he had made political statements opposing the defunding of police. Russell is known for his distaste of social media and, despite dozens of fake profiles pretending to be the veteran actor, does not have verified accounts on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. In general, Russell is not active on social media and had not recently appeared in public making such declarations. distaste In fact, since the poem's original posting in June 2020, language and imagery shared alongside of it underwent several changes that show the kind of manipulation a social media post may experience in a short amount of time. "The Badge," a poem that recognizes police officers and their efforts to help society, was originally credited to an anonymous source and was first posted to social media on June 7. It begins: June 7 This badge ran towards certain death as the Towers collapsed on 9-11. This badge ran into the line of fire to save the people in the Pulse Night Club. This badge sheltered thousands as bullets rained down from the Mandalay Hotel in Las Vegas. This badge protected a BLM rally that left five officers dead in Dallas. This badge ran into the Sandy Hook School to stop a school shooter. The poem goes on to highlight other roles and responsibilities of law enforcement officers, including escorting the elderly across the street and helping to return crying children to their mothers. But since it was originally shared to Facebook, the 22-line composition underwent several iterations. A second version of the poem surfaced in a post shared to the Victor Valley News Facebook page, a media outlet in Victorville, California, with an additional introduction that read: shared Victor Valley News Yes ... lets all join in the hatred of all police for the sins of a few. Lets defund one of the most important public institutions in our countries history. Lets have all badges removed and allow people to tend to their own safety and security. This wording above appears to have originated in a blog post titled, "In Honor of Uncle Bob Roberts Killed in the Line of Duty," posted on June 14 by a self-described entrepreneur. blog post The post in question that Snopes readers asked us about added the above introduction and, in its most recent iteration, social media users included a headshot of Russell accompanied by the following: Amazing Post!! Kurt Russell. The additional wording insinuated that the actor had an affiliation with the Aug. 6, 2020 post. In less than a week, the post had been shared over 125,000 times on Facebook. Aug. 6, 2020 The libertarian actor has been at the heart of several viral claims falsely linking him to supporting U.S. President Donald Trump, including a 2016 image that showed him and partner, Goldie Hawn, wearing photoshopped pro-Trump shirts. In 2018, a fake Twitter account using Russells face as a profile picture incorrectly quoted the actor as having called Trump relentless, dedicated, and determined. The following year, a right-leaning Facebook page posted a meme that falsely insinuated Russell referred to Democrats as enemies of the state. libertarian 2016 image quoted enemies of the state. On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market. archiving services  new tweet  Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data. do not most U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama. record started Elkins, Kathleen."Only Half of Americans Have Access to a 401(k)  Heres How to Save for Retirement If You Dont."
CNBC.18 March 2019. Chang, Sue."Welcome To the Longest Bull Market in Wall Street History."
CNBC.22 August 2018. Chang, Sue. "The Dows Tumultuous History, in One Chart."
MarketWatch. 3 February 2018. Martin, Emmie."Heres How Many Americans Have Nothing Saved for Retirement."
CNBC.28 June 2019. FACT CHECK: Can Facebook users get a $100 JCPenney coupon for liking and sharing a post?      Claim:  Facebook users can get a $100 JCPenney coupon for liking and sharing a post.     Origins: In August 2015 a link began circulating on Facebook that promised users a $100 JCPenney coupon in exchange for liking and sharing a post (with a seemingly ticking deadline clock impressing upon them the need to hurry up and do so). Users who clicked through those shared links were greeted by a page titled "Back to School with a $100 JCPenney Coupon," which mimicked the style of Facebook-based content (despite being hosted outside that social network): However, those who looked closely at the embedded link may have noticed one prominent red flag. As seen in the example at the top of this page, the URL pointed to "JCPeeney.net" and not JCPenney.com, the official website of JCPenney. Users who shared the link to the real JCPenney's Facebook wall to ask if the attractive offer was legitimate received replies from chain representatives stating: Facebook I do apologize that I have to disappoint you. The $100 off $110 coupon offer that has been posted to some social media sites is not a valid JCPenney coupon. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Please stop by jcpenney.com to view offers that are currently available online and in our stores. Currently we are offering our Friends and Family discount. Happy Shopping. At this point most regular Facebook users have encountered (and will continue to see) similar survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers previously used as bait by scammers aiming collect personal information and page likes from social media users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media coupon scams: 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. Legitimate coupons for JC Penney (and a large variety of other retailers) can be found on sale aggregators such as RetailMeNot, but even the largest discount codes never approach the $100+ savings promised by Facebook coupon scammers. RetailMeNot Last updated:  10August 2015 Originally published: 10August 2015 As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information.