Letter from Vladimir Putin
Claim:  Text reproduces an open letter to Americans from Russian president Vladimir Putin. INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2013] A letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the American people has been circulating around the internet for the past couple of days. In the letter, Putin re-introduces Americans to some unpleasant facts about history and life theyd rather forget, such as Nixons reasoning behind massive carpet bombing of millions or North Vietnamese for the purpose of 'looking good' while exiting the war, and how Pakistan has been using the U.S. as a 'false ally' to gain foreign aid, while using the funds to embolden the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls out Barrack Hussein Obama for having the audacity to meet with gay rights activists while he is in Russia next week, a group Putin despises, while refusing to carve away time to meet with him and solve the Syria issue. He compares the action to the equivalent of him (Putin) coming to the U.S. and meeting with Obamas domestic enemy, the N.R.A.  How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.  You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but hes my son-of-a-bitch. So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, "We will give you nothing," well, why would I ever agree to that? That's not negotiation, that's dictation; it's a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore. [Remainder of the letter can be viewed here.] here Origins:  This "open letter" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans, putatively expressing that politician's viewpoints on U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war and other international matters, was published on breitbart.com on 3 September 2013 under the  breitbart.com title "LETS JOIN ONE ANOTHER TO CRUSH THE UNHOLY, UNRULY, JIHADI MUSLIMS" and attributed to Vladimir Putin.  Many readers who encountered this item on that site (and elsewhere) mistook its attribution and first person tone as an indication that the piece was actually written by President Putin himself.   Even though this item may have been cast in the first person and mockingly bylined as something penned by "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin," it's not an actual open letter to Americans written by the Russian president.  It's a political opinion piece that uses a "literary ventriloquism" device through which an author expresses his viewpoint by putting his words into someone else's mouth  highlighting what the writer wants the audience to understand by presenting the author's words as another person's, as if the audience were "inside the mind of" that other person. Coincidentally, nine days later the New York Times published a (much more temperate) op-ed piece about U.S. military intervention in Syria which was also bylined with Vladimir Putin's name.  According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, the editorial had been offered to the Times by the public relations firm Ketchum (which works on behalf of Russian interests), and the idea for the article and its basic content did indeed come from President Putin, with some of his assistants crafting the final text.  op-ed Last updated:  12 September 2013
On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made  in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate:  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016   A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously  sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP  Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card:  After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system  either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card  only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information  but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation:  .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE  ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter  Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way.  Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself.  Dennin, James.  "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations."
  Mic.  4 August 2016. On 12 April 2017, the partisan web site Crooks and Liars reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions owns shares in the private prison industry and stands to gain financially from some of his recent policy announcements: reported It's more than a conflict of interest. The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets. From announcing he wants federal law enforcement agencies to bust people for a little bit of weed, to ordering federal prosecutors to find ways to convict more immigrants, Sessions is looking for ways to provide more clients to private prisons that are contracted by the federal government... ...As Attorney General Sessions fills these private prisons, he is making money. According to his latest financial disclosures required by congress, dated December 23, 2016, he divested of other investments that were found to be in conflict. In these disclosures, he also lists numerous Vanguard funds. Vanguard owns more private prison stock than any other investment management company. A popular meme also broadcast this claim:   The article lists three funds that Sessions has shares in, all of which are managed by the investment firm Vanguard, and claims that the funds contain holdings in two leading companies in the private prison industry: CoreCivic and GEO Group. This is true of only two of those funds. The third seems to be listed as the result of a mix-up. The article rightly states that one of these funds, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index fund, contains holdings in "GEO Holdings Corporation". However, this is a Japanese company that has no relation to the Florida-based private prison company GEO Group, as confirmed to Snopes.com by a spokesperson for GEO Group. Japanese company As for the other two investment funds, federal financial disclosure records show that the Attorney General owns between $31,003 and $115,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, yielding a total of between $1,403 and $4,500 in income per year for Sessions. federal financial disclosure records Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund And this fund does indeed include CoreCivic and GEO Group:   However, what the article does not mention is that CoreCivic and GEO Group constitute just two out of 3,557 companies in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is what's known as an Excepted Investment Fund (EIF) - that means the fund is independently managed (that is, not by Sessions himself), and either publicly traded or "widely-diversified" (that is, it doesn't focus on one particular sector of the economy), according to the Office of Government Ethics.  Office of Government Ethics A brief look at this particular fund shows that its more than 3,500 holdings relate to companies from throughout the economy, including well-known names such as Cracker Barrel, Zillow and Rite Aid.  The same is true of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund, in which Sessions has between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares, yielding between $201 and $1,000 in income for him, per year. Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund While it does include holdings in CoreCivic and GEO Group, these are just two of 1,422 companies listed in the fund, which come from a variety of sectors and include names like Domino's Pizza and JetBlue Airways. According to Kathleen Clark, a Professor at Washington University School of Law and an expert on legal and government ethics, investments in widely-diversified funds such as these are unlikely to leave a public official vulnerable to conflicts of interest. If it's a diversified fund as opposed to being a sector fund [focused on one sector of the economy], then it's not subject to the conflict of interest statute. Clark told us that even if one or two companies in a widely-diversified fund were to perform well and increase their value, the presence of a large number of other companies in that fund means "It is exceedingly unlikely that such an interest would influence the government official, or that the public would perceive that as a significant risk." This is because income from a widely-diversified fund, like the two we're examining, is based on the aggregate value of the companies within that fund. Remember that in one fund, CoreCivic and GEO Group represent two out of 3,557 companies, and in the other, they represent two out of 1,422. Now remember that the Attorney General's total annual income from the first fund is between $1,403 and $4,500 and from the second fund, it's between $201 and $1,000. So while it's true that Jeff Sessions has some shares in funds that include holdings in two private prison companies, it's misleading to say that this means he stands to gain in any meaningful way from an increase in the value of those companies, or that "The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets." The Attorney General's annual income from these funds - which is relatively low - depends on the overall performance of those funds. A surge in the value of CoreCivic or the GEO Group would very quickly be cancelled out by a dip in the value of just a handful of the thousands of other companies included in those two funds, and because these are widely-diversified Excepted Invested Funds, they don't fall foul of conflict of interest regulations. Budd, Jenn.  "Jeff Sessions Getting Rich Filling Private Prisons."
  Crooks and Liars.  12 April 2017
 Office of Government Ethics.  "Excepted Investment Fund."
  Accessed 17 May 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Office of Government Ethics.  "Public Financial Disclosure Report - Jefferson B. Sessions."
  Accessed 17 May 2017. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 The American corporation has long been a target, especially in online debate, of criticism and condemnation  sometimes well-founded and justified, but at other times irrelevant and wrong-headed.  According to a theory advanced by Academy Award-nominated director Adam McKay, there is a direct link between the modern corporation and 1930's style fascism  one that Merriam-Webster even went so far as to censor from its definition of fascism following a corporate takeover in the 1980s.  In April 2018, McKay's words were turned into a widely-shared online meme published by the Facebook page "Americans Against Fascism": meme Benito Mussolini created the word "fascism." He defined it as "the merging of the state and the corporation." He also said a more accurate word would be "corporatism." This was the definition in Webster's up until 1987 when a corporation bought Webster's and changed it to exclude any mention of corporations."  Adam McKay.    The quote is taken word for word from a 2010 op-ed written by McKay for the Huffington Post, in which he offered a scathing criticism of large corporations and the recent Citizens United decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. (He accused four of the court's justices of treason.) op-ed McKay's account is riddled with errors. For one thing, the definition of fascism commonly attributed to Mussolini is "the merging of the state and corporate power," not "the corporation," as McKay presents it. Second, it's not clear that Mussolini  or even his ghostwriter, the philosopher Giovanni Gentile  ever actually gave this precise definition of fascism.  not clear Most importantly, though, the meme's central point revolves around a common misunderstanding of what "corporatism" was in Mussolini's fascism and a conflation with the modern capitalist "corporation," most likely borne out of the similarity between the words. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of guilds or corporations ("corporazione") representing each major industry.  In his Dictionary of Political Thought, Roger Scruton describes corporatism in this way: this way The economy was divided into associations (called syndicates) of workers, employers and the professions; only one syndicate was allowed in each branch of industry, and all officials were either fascist politicians or else loyal to the fascist cause. According to law the syndicates were autonomous, but in fact they were run by the state. The corporations united the syndicates in a given industry, but made no pretence at autonomy from the state. This ultimate power and pervasive influence of the state (led by one man, of course) was famously summed up by Mussolini in a speech in 1927, in which he declared: "everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."  declared In the Doctrine of Fascism, in 1932, Mussolini (with the help of Gentile) wrote: wrote Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State. In other words, corporatism in Mussolini's fascism was not a free-market capitalist system. Far from it. It did not allow for the kind of competition, innovation, market entry, and research and development characteristic of modern capitalism, and it was closely ruled in every way by the state with Mussolini at its head.  Anything that draws a direct link between what are now referred to as corporations (large, powerful private companies operating in a modern free-market capitalist system) and Mussolini's corporatism, is founded on a misunderstanding  most likely caused by the similarity between the words.  As for the claim that Webster's dictionary censored its definition of fascism when it was taken over by a public relations-sensitive corporation in 1987: Merriam-Webster has in fact been owned by Encyclopedia Brittanica Incorporated since 1964, and has operated as Merriam-Webster Incorporated since 1982; that claim is inaccurate. owned Bier, Daniel. "Fake Quote Files: Benito Mussolini on Fascism and Corporatism."
The Skeptical Libertarian. 7 February 2013. Berlet, Chip. "Mussolini on the Corporate State."
 Political Research Associates. January 2005. Scruton, Roger. "The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought."
 Palgrave Macmillan. 3rd Edition 2007. Mussolini, Benito; Gentile, Giovanni. "The Doctrine of Fascism."
 Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions/World Future Fund. 1935. On July 8, 2010, Gov. Charlie Crist called for aspecial sessionJuly 20-23 for legislators to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to ban oil drilling near Florida's coasts.Republican Marco Rubio, one of independent Crist's rival in the U.S. Senate race, immediately accused Crist of using the session for political gain.Rubio wrote in a July 9press release, $120,000 will be spent by taxpayers on Charlie Crist's political photo-op special session.Clearly, Crist will get news coverage including photo-ops out of the special session -- as will legislative leaders from both parties. But does Rubio have the dollar figure right?Everyone we spoke to agrees it's hard to say, but $40,000 a day is the most common figure used. When Crist announced this session, ThePalm Beach Postcited a $40,000 a day figure while theSt. Petersburg Timeswrote $50,000. Other articles simply stated tens of thousands a day. In the archives, we found that the $40,000 figure has been quoted for decades -- as early as 1983 in theMiami Heraldand 1989 in theSt. Petersburg Times.Is there no such thing as inflation when it comes to special sessions in Florida?We asked the House and Senate forthe bills from some recent special sessions, and we added up the average costs for both legislative bodies to get one average cost per day. The special session in early October 2007 on budget cuts and personal injury protection for motorists cost an average of $47,924.19 per day. Another session later in October 2007 (property tax cuts) cost an average of $45,329.64. A session in January 2009 (state budget) cost an average of $46,378.71 per day. The average for those three sessions was about $46,544 per day.Then is $46,544 a good daily average? Not necessarily. The House and Senate spokespersons, the Division of Management Services and the Office for Legislative Services all caution that those averages are imprecise. For example, they include just travel, meals, hotels and per diem. Jill Chamberlin, spokesperson for the House, says the per-diem for special sessions is $80 a day. However, lawmakers can get reimbursements instead: up to $110 a day for hotel, up to $36 a day for meals, and travel at 44.5 cents per mile or the common airline fare. The OLS calculates the length of the session differently for each body depending on what they scheduled on their calendars each day.The averages also don't include the cost of aides. If legislators want to bring an aide -- most don't for a brief special session -- that is paid for out of their district funds, which are also taxpayer dollars. Lawmakers may come into Tallahassee the day before the session or stay overnight when it ends, which affect the costs.Chamberlin also notes that some special sessions include committee meetings instead of floor sessions that require full attendance, so the bean-counters try to separate those costs from the special-session costs. For example, a December 2009 session on transportation was mostly committee meetings so expenses associated with the session were low: an average of $22,105.31.We contacted the Florida Department of Management Services to ask about electricity use and other routine building costs. Do they contribute to the cost of a special session? Not really, says Linda McDonald, DMS spokeswoman, in an e-mail. She explains that the lights and the staff are there year-round. The electric bill was higher in January 2009 for the special session on the budget than in January 2008, but McDonald blames higher rates, not the special session, for most of the increase.There probably will be minimal additional costs for the Capitol Police, but Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesman Mike Morrison said he couldn't speculate on the amount. The police provide security to the complex year round. Pinpointing the average is not a simple task because there are so many variables, said Lisa Swindle, finance and accounting director for the Office of Legislative Services. But each time the OLS attempts to come up with an average, it is around $40,000, she said. Swindle said several years ago both the House and Senate appropriation bills allotted an additional $40,000 per day for each body for special sessions if they needed it, and that's likely why it's the most common figure used. She also says the one coming up will be a true special session, without deducting cost of committee meetings, so we here at PolitiFact will update those costs when the session is over. We asked for cost records of special sessions in the 1980s and 1990s to see why the $40,000 figure has stood up for so long. But the OLS says it doesn't have those records.We asked Rubio's campaign where it got the $120,000 figure. Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said the campaign had heard reports between $30,000 and $50,000 a day, and he cited a July 9 blog in theOrlando Sentinel. Even that blog states that Rubio's $120,000 figure is probably low.So where does that leave us?When Crist announced the special session, Rubio pounced and accused him of creating a $120,000-taxpayer funded photo op for a four-day special session. Rubio was being conservative with his numbers, using the low-end of $30,000 for four days. We're going with actual average of $46,544 from three recent sessions, and adding a fudge factor for all those imprecise costs that nobody in Tallahassee seems able to pin down. Let's call it a minimum of $50,000 a day, and $200,000 if this session lasts four days. Rubio went with a logical but conservative estimate, so we rate this claim Mostly True. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its 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." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is In mid-April 2017, multiple online sources reported that former U.S. State Department employee Candace Claiborne (purportedly an employee of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) was arrested on charges of treason: Barack Obama Hillary Clinton   The indictment in question was real, although many online reports covering it were inaccurate. Claiborne was arrested on specific charges related to improperly receiving gifts in exchange for her providing information to Chinese agents  obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the F.B.I.   not "treason," as noted in a Justice Department press release about the case: press release A federal complaint was unsealed charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents. The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBIs Washington Field Office. Candace Marie Claiborne is a U.S. State Department employee who possesses a Top Secret security clearance and allegedly failed to report her contacts with Chinese foreign intelligence agents who provided her with thousands of dollars of gifts and benefits, said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. Claiborne used her position and her access to sensitive diplomatic data for personal profit. Pursuing those who imperil our national security for personal gain will remain a key priority of the National Security Division. Candace Claiborne is charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements in connection with her alleged concealment and failure to report her improper connections to foreign contacts along with the tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits they provided, said U.S. Attorney Phillips. As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency. This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts," said Assistant Director in Charge Vale. "The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust. Claiborne is required to report any contacts with persons suspected of affiliation with a foreign intelligence agency. Despite such a requirement, the affidavit alleges, Claiborne failed to report repeated contacts with two intelligence agents of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), even though these agents provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years. According to the affidavit, the gifts and benefits included cash wired to Claibornes USAA account, an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Years gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend. Some of these gifts and benefits were provided directly to Claiborne, the affidavit alleges, while others were provided through a co-conspirator.  Claiborne wasn't an "employee" of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, other than in the sense that she held a mid-level (not a "deep state operative") job at the State Department, which was headed by Clinton from 2009-2013 (in her position as Secretary of State) and is a part of the executive branch, which was headed by Barack Obama from 2009-2017 (in his position as President of the United States).  By that standard, Claiborne would also have been an "employee" of Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson, as the affidavit that accompanied the criminal complaint against her noted she was still working for the State Department at the time of her arrest: affidavit Candace Claiborne is a 60-year-old Office Management Specialist with the Department of State. She is a United States citizen who resides and works in Washington, D.C. Claiborne has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and law enforcement from the University of the District of Columbia. She joined the State Department in 1999, and has served in a variety of places, including Washington, D.C., Baghdad, Iraq, Beijing and Shanghai, China, and Khartoum, Sudan. According to State Department records, Claiborne has language proficiency in Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish. She currently works at the Department of State headquarters in Washington, D.C. in the Office of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts. Claiborne has held a TOP SECRET security clearance since 1999. Candace Claiborne pled "not guilty" at her 29 March 2017 court appearance, and a preliminary hearing for her case was scheduled for 18 April 2017.  Dmitry, Baxter.  "Former Hillary Clinton Employee Arrested on Treason Charges."
  YourNewsWire.com.  12 April 2017. Gerstein, Josh.  "State Department Aide Charged for Hiding Gifts from Chinese Agents."
  Politico.  29 March 2017. Miller, John.  "Obamas 'Deep State' Operative Just Got Arrested for Committing Treason  The First Domino Has Fallen."
  America's Freedom Fighters.  29 March 2017.
 The United States Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs.  "State Department Employee Arrested and Charged With Concealing Extensive Contacts With Foreign Agents."
  29 March 2017. United States Code, Title 18.  "Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition, And Subversive Activities."
  Accessed 14 April 2017. On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007. Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title.