Manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft
Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012.
In mid-June 2021, viral social media posts claimed a U.S. Republican congressman who has previously been accused of attempting to downplay the seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack refused to shake hands with a police officer who had tried that day to protect the federal building from the violent mob of Donald Trump supporters. seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack Donald Trump Before we unpack that accusation, some context: On June 15, the House of Representatives approved a proposal on a 406-21 vote to award the highest congressional honor to the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for protecting the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack. Jan. 6 attack. Those who voted "no" on the measure to recognize officers with the Congressional Gold Medal were all Republicans who said they had qualms with describing the events of Jan. 6 as an "insurrection" or the Capitol as a "temple of democracy," among other issues, according to news reports and the congressional voting record. Republicans news reports congressional voting record The day after that vote, a group including MPD officer Michael Fanone, who was injured during the Jan. 6 attack, visited the Capitol to try to meet with the above-mentioned Republicans and share his experience of trying to fend off the mob. On an elevator during that June 16 tour, Fanone said, he introduced himself to Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde  who is one of the aforementioned 21 Republicans  and the congressman did not shake his hand. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat who represents a portion of California's Bay Area, was among the first people to report the alleged elevator encounter on Twitter.  Twitter "Fanone introduced himself as 'someone who fought to defend the Capitol' and put out his hand. Clyde refused to shake it," he tweeted June 16 around 3:30 p.m. EST.   Multiple news outlets ran with the story, including The Washington Post, which claimed in a headline: "GOP congressman refuses to shake hands with D.C. police officer who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6." Multiple news outlets claimed in a headline A spokesperson for Swalwell told Snopes that Fanone had called the congressman "immediately" after the run-in occured to share what had happened. Then, after Swalwell's tweet went viral, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican serving Illinois, said he called the police officer, and he confirmed with him the alleged event took place. said As posts about the interaction spread rapidly online, Fanone went on CNN's "Don Lemon Tonight" to explain the incident for himself: CNN's Fanone: I saw Congressman Clyde standing outside of an elevator. I was there with also [Capitol Police Officer] Harry Dunn, who accompanied me throughout the Capitol, went into the elevator. I told, I, you know, greeted Congressman Clyde. I was very cordial. Harry Dunn I extended my hand to shake his hand. He just stared at me. I asked him if he was going to shake my hand, and he told me that he didn't know who I was. So, I introduced myself. I said that I was officer Micheal Fanone; that I was a D.C. Metropolitan police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol and, as a result, I suffered a traumatic brain injury, as well as a heart attack, after having been tased numerous times at the base of my skull, as well as being severely beaten. At that point, the Congressman turned away from me, pulled out a cell phone. It looked like he was attempting to pull up like an audio recording app on his phone and, again, like never acknowledged me at any point. As soon as the elevator's doors open, he ran as quickly as he could like a coward. Lemon: Like a coward, didn't shake your hand. Fanone: Correct, absolutely not. In summary, Fanone told the news anchor that he extended his hand to Clyde, and the Congressman responded saying he didn't recognize the police officer. After that, Fanone said he introduced himself as a "police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol," and then Clyde allegedly "turned away." The police officer likened the interaction to "Clyde giving the middle finger to myself and every other member of [MPD] and U.S. Capitol Police that responded that day," according to a recording of his CNN appearance. No photo or video evidence existed to corroborate Fanone's story. However, Harry Dunn, a 13-year veteran of the Capitol Police, told Snopes he was in the elevator, too, and verified the key points of Fanone's CNN interview in an email to Snopes, displayed below:   In other words, he told us that both police officers "said hello" to the Congressman and when Fanone extended his hand, "Rep Clyde looked down at Mike's hand and looked away almost immediately." Dunn's account of what happened next matched Fanone's (Fanone asked Clyde if he was going to shake his hand, Clyde said he did not know who he was, and Fanone introduced himself). "As Mike was doing that, Clyde kept inching as close to the wall as he could," Dunn told Snopes. "He was fidgeting with his phone and ... opened the video recorder mode and started to record. Mike and I looked at each other and shook our heads and we both said 'unbelievable.'" Snopes contacted Clyde's office for his response to the accusations, but we have not heard back. (The congressman also did not respond to other news media, including The Washington Post, Business Insider, and CNN.) The Washington Post Business Insider CNN Nothing leads us to believe Fanone's story isn't accurate, and Dunn's corroboration as an eyewitness is enough to confirm the claim as true. The caveat, however, is that without the congressman's own explanation for his actions, all possible explanations for why he did not appear to accept Fanone's greeting are subjective. We only have Fanone's and Dunn's word for the claim that he was fully aware of the police officer's invitation to shake hands and consciously rejected it. It's possible that Clyde did not hear or understand Fanone's introduction, for whatever reasons. Perhaps he was wearing wireless headphones or another Bluetooth device that prevented him from hearing, for example.  Our invitation to Clyde to tell his side of the story still stands. This report was updated to include comments from Rep. Eric Swalwell's spokesperson. Beto ORourke, the Democratic nominee challenging Republican U.S. Sen.Ted Cruzof Texas, said that vast U.S. wealth differences show the economy doesnt work for everyone. The El Paso congressmans half-page ad, in theHouston Defenders July 26, 2018,issue, shows ORourke shaking hands with an African-American man. Accompanying text says: Our economy isn't working for everyone when black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. Let's level the playing field by ensuring access to good jobs, higher pay, skills training, and a fair shot at economic success. A reminder: Wealth is distinct from income. It measures how much we own, not how much we make. While the two are closely tied, economists talk about wealth in terms of net worth. A house, for example, adds to net worth if its value is higher than the amount of the mortgage. Assets minus debts gives you net worth. 2016 federal survey We asked ORourkes campaign about the basis of ORourkes 10 times less claim in the ad, which had come to our attention in a Texas Tribunenews storyon ORourkes advertising expenditures. By email, Chris Evans of ORourkes campaign pointed out an October 2017Washington PostWonkblogstoryand other reports rooted in 2016 consumer survey data summed up by the Federal Reserve in fall 2017. That data, Evans told us, pegged the median net worth of white families at 10 times the median net worth of black families. The Wonkblog story says that according to the survey results, the median net worth of white families  $171,000  is now 10 times that of black families and eight times that of Hispanic families. A factor, the story says, is that white families are five times more likely than black or Hispanic families to inherit money. That translates into opportunity  a down payment on a home, tuition to go to school, capital to build a small business, savings to retire on. Other factors, the story says, include distinct rates of home ownership and participation in job-related savings plans. Median and average wealth differences According to apairofSeptember 2017 Federal Reserve articles, the agencys 2016 Survey of Consumer Financesreached6,254 familieswith queries onhouseholds total pre-tax income, balance sheets, pensions, income and demographic characteristics. No other study for the country collects comparable information, the agency says. The 2016 survey found about a 10-to-1 difference in the median wealth/net worth of white and black Americans--the ratio between $171,000 and $17,600. Net worth is defined as the difference between families' gross assets and their liabilities. The survey results otherwise suggest the difference in the average wealth of white and black Americans is nearly 7-to-1--$933,700 for white residents and $138,200 for black residents. (An equal number of households earn more and less than each median. Averages are based on adding up reported incomes and dividing by the number of households.) The Fed offered one other comparison: Nearly 1 in 5 black households reported zero or negative net worth compared to a smaller share of white households, 9 percent, the study says. Factors behind white-black difference We spotted a Fed chart specifying disparities by race identified in the survey in household income and by whether people reported owning  homes and cars or having retirement accounts: SOURCE:Excerpted from chart in data analysis,Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Sept. 27, 2017 (accessed Aug. 17, 2018) As ORourkes spokesman also noted, the Pew Research Center took a longer view of the wealth disparity singled out by ORourke. Pews November 2017 Fact Tankstorysays that according to the Feds surveys over the years, the wealth gap between white and black and Hispanic households shrank by about half from 2007 to 2016. The month before, another non-partisan entity, the Urban Institute,updated its chartsdrawing on the Feds surveys. For more than 50 years, the institute says, white families have outpaced black and Hispanic families in average wealth. We asked the institute to evaluate ORourkes claim. The statement had the right spirit, we heard back, thoughCaroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow, offered a caveat in that the 2016 Fed survey suggests that black Americans had one-tenth the median wealth of whites, not 10 times less. Older survey A 2014PunditFact fact-checkled us to fetch what turned out to be older results from a different survey. In June 2017, the U.S. Census Bureaureleasedits estimates of household net incomes attributed to its 2013Survey of Income and Program Participation. Tables in the release suggest that white households at the time had median net worths of $103,796 and black households had net worths of $9,211--signaling an 11-to-1 ratio. White households had average net worths of $292,217, the bureau says, compared to $91,595 for black households--indicating a 3-to-1 ratio. Our ruling ORourke said that black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. Survey results pinpoint two ways to gauge such disparities. According to the Feds 2016 consumer survey, black Americans had one-tenth the median wealth of white Americans while black Americans had a little over one-seventh the average wealth of white Americans. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. One of the many elements of the contentious U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the autumn of 2018 was the disclosure that the woman who had accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her back in 1982, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, had taken and passed a polygraph examination.  This facet of the confirmation brouhaha prompted debates about whether Judge Kavanaugh should similarly subject himself to polygraph examination, and about the reliability of such tests in general. (Kavanaugh responded to a question about whether he would take such a test by saying that he would do whatever the Judiciary Committee asked him to do, while pointing out that polygraph examinations are inadmissible in federal court because they are "unreliable.") polygraph One of the pieces of evidence enlisted in support of one side of those debates was a claim that Judge Kavanaugh had once supposedly ruled in a case that "polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions":  The case referred to here was Sack v. Department of Defense Sack v. Department of Defense The underlying lawsuit was filed by Kathryn Sack, a Ph.D. student at the University of Virginia, who was appealing the Department of Defense's (DOD) denial of her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for various DOD reports about the government's use of polygraph examinations and related documents, which she wanted to use for her dissertation on polygraph bias. In order to justify their denial of Sack's requests, the DOD had to show that the records and information sought by her were "compiled for law enforcement purposes" and that their production would "disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations" and reasonably "risk circumvention of the law" -- thereby meeting the standards of FOIA Exemption 7E.   Exemption 7E The court sided with the DOD in denying Sack's FOIA requests, holding that FOIA Exemption 7E should apply.  In Kavanaugh's opinion for the court, he noted that "the reports about polygraph use were compiled for law enforcement purposes," because law enforcement agencies use them for functions such as "test[ing] the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants" and "screen[ing] applicants for security clearances," and therefore "the reports help ensure that law enforcement officers optimally use an important law enforcement tool."  Kavanaugh also noted that the reports requested by Sack identify deficiencies in law enforcement agencies polygraph programs, and therefore releasing those reports could allow criminal suspects and others to subvert polygraph examinations.   Nothing in Judge Kavanaugh's opinion addressed whether "polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions."  He merely observed, for the purposes of a very specific legal ruling, that the federal government sometimes uses polygraph tests for the purposes of screening applicants; he offered no judgment or opinion about their reliability or how they should or could be regarded by employers.   U.S. Department of Justice.  "Exemption 7(E)."
  Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act.  Accessed 2 October 2018.  Justia.  "Sack v. DOD, No. 14-5039 (D.C. Cir. 2016)."
    20 May 2016. Hayes, Christal.  "Here's the Polygraph Test Christine Blasey Ford Took on Her Allegations Against Kavanaugh."
  USA Today.  26 September 2018.
 Kupfer, Theodore.  "A False Charge on Polygraphs."
  National Review.  28 September 2018. Messages offering a seemingly helpful heads-up about how to deal with a situation in which one is forced to hand over money withdrawn from an ATM under duress began circulating on the Internet in September 2006:  I just found out that should you ever be forced to withdraw monies from an ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your Pin # in reverse. The machine will still give you the monies you requested, but unknown to the robber, etc, the police will be immediately dispatched to help you. The broadcast stated that this method of calling the police is very seldom used because people don't know it exist, and it might mean the difference between life and death. Hopefully, none of you will have to use this, but I wanted to pass it along just in case you hadn't heard of it. Please pass it along to everyonepossible. [Collected via e-mail, December 2008] PIN NUMBER REVERSAL If you should ever be forced by a robber to withdraw money from an ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your PIN # in reverse. For example if your pin number is 1234 then you would put in 4321. The ATM recognizes that your pin number is backwards from the ATM card you placed in the machine The machine will still give you the money you requested, but unknown to the robber, the police will be immediately dispatched to help you. This information was recently broadcast on CTV and it states that it is seldom used because people don't know it exists. I checked with my Bank of Nova Scotia to see if this was correct and staff said yes this information is correct. Please pass this along to everyone possible. [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] WHEN A THIEF FORCES YOU TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE ATM, DO NOT ARGUE OR RESIST, YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT HE OR SHE MIGHT DO TO YOU. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS TO PUNCH YOUR PIN IN THE REVERSE, I..E IF YOUR PIN IS 1254, YOU PUNCH 4521. THE MOMENT YOU PUNCH IN THE REVERSE, THE MONEY WILL COME OUT BUT WILL BE STUCK INTO THE MACHINE HALF WAY OUT AND IT WILL ALERT THE POLICE WITHOUT THE NOTICE OF THE THIEF. EVERY ATM HAS IT; IT IS SPECIALLY MADE TO SIGNIFY DANGER AND HELP. NOT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THIS. FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND THOSE YOU CARE However, the word "seemingly" applies in this case because the tip is only a chimera, as entering one's Personal Identification Number (PIN) in reverse at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) does not automatically summon the police. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 compelled the Federal Trade Commission to provide an analysis of any technology, either then currently available or under development, which would allow a distressed ATM user to send an electronic alert to a law enforcement agency. The following statements were made in the FTC's April 2010 report in response to that requirement: report FTC staff learned that emergency-PIN technologies have never been deployed at any ATMs. The respondent banks reported that none of their ATMs currently have installed, or have ever had installed, an emergency-PIN system of any sort. The ATM manufacturer Diebold confirms that, to its knowledge, no ATMs have or have had an emergency-PIN system. Ergo, there aren't and haven't ever been "reverse PIN" technologies despite online claims dating to September 2006 that anyone being robbed at an ATM simply had to enter his or her PIN in reverse to summon help. Moreover, said that FTC report: The available information suggests that emergency-PIN and alarm button devices: (1) may not halt or deter crimes to any significant extent; (2) may in some instances increase the danger to customers who are targeted by offenders and also lead to some false alarms (although the exact magnitude of these potential effects cannot be determined); and (3) may impose substantial implementation costs, although no formally derived cost estimates of implementing these technologies are currently available. The reverse PIN system was first imagined in 1994 and patented in 1998 by Joseph Zingher, a Chicago businessman. His SafetyPIN System would alert police that a crime was in progress when a cardholder at an ATM keyed in the reverse of his personal identification numbers. The flip-flopped PIN would serve as a "panic code" that sent a silent alarm to police to notify them that an ATM customer was acting under duress. Because palindromic PINs (e.g., 2002, 7337, 4884) cannot be reversed, Zingher's system included work-arounds for such numeric combinations. However, Zingher had little success in interesting the banking community in SafetyPIN despite his pitching it to them with great persistence over the years. He did in 2004 succeed in getting the Illinois General Assembly to adopt a "reverse PIN" clause in SB 562, but the final version of the bill watered down the wording so as to make banks' implementation of the system optional rather than mandatory: "A terminal operated in this State may be designed and programmed so that when a consumer enters his or her personal identification number in reverse order, the terminal automatically sends an alarm to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the terminal location." SB 562 In 2006, Michael Boyd pressed the Georgia State Assembly to pass a law requiring banks to create ATM panic codes that would operate the machines normally while also alerting police. His wife, Kimberly Boyd, was killed on 12 September 2005 after being carjacked by convicted sex offender Brian O'Neil Clark and forced to withdraw cash at an ATM. (She died when Clark crashed her SUV while being followed by a civilian who ultimately shot Clark to death afterwards.) Such a bill was placed before the Georgia Senate on 29 December 2005 (SB 379), but nothing came of it. SB 379 In 2004, the Kansas state senate sent to its Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee SB 333, a bill that stated: "Any automated teller machine operated in this state shall be designed and programmed so that when a consumer enters such consumer's personal identification number in reverse order, the automated teller machine automatically sends an alarm to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the automated teller machine location." That bill died in committee that year. SB 333 All this talk of various bills in three different state legislatures may serve to obscure some of the more important points attaching to this issue, points that are key to making up one's mind about whether having such a system in place is actually a good idea. No one in the banking industry seems to want the technology. The banks argue against its implementation, not only on the basis of cost but also because they doubt such an alert would help anyone being coerced into making an ATM withdrawal. Even if police could be summoned via the keying of a special "alert" or "panic" code, they say, law enforcement would likely arrive long after victim and captor had departed. They have also warned of the very real possibility that victims' fumbling around while trying to trigger silent alarms could cause their captors to realize something was up and take those realizations out on their captives. Finally, there is the problem of ATM customers' quickly conjuring up their accustomed PINs in reverse: Even in situations lacking added stress, mentally reconstructing one's PIN backwards is a difficult task for many people. Add to that difficulty the terror of being in the possession of a violent and armed person, and precious few victims might be able to come up with reversed PINs seamlessly enough to fool their captors into believing that everything was proceeding according to plan. As Chuck Stones of the Kansas Bankers Association said in 2004: "I'm not sure anyone here could remember their PIN numbers backward with a gun to their head." Hazim, Madinah.  "Creators Pitch ATM Safety System."   Topeka Capital-Journal.  13 June 2001. Kellner, Tomas.  "Banking on ATM Safety."   Forbes.  28 June 2004. McDermott, Kevin.  "Inventor Urges Idea to Thwart Holdups at ATMs."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  28 March 2005  (p. B1). Plummer, Don.  "Push on for ATM Alert Code."   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 January 2006  (p. E3). In April 2020, as much of the U.S. economy was at a standstill while the federal and state governments scrambled to deal with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, a meme circulated via social media held that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had declared Congress would be out of session until the following month unless an "emergency" arose:  This meme was a gross distortion of what actually took place, which was not that Pelosi took it upon herself to decide no current emergency required lawmakers' attention and to adjourn Congress until the following month (a power she does not possess). Rather, bipartisan statements from the majority leaders of both houses of Congress  Republican Mitch McConnell for the Senate and Democrat Steny Hoyer for the House of Representatives  announced that Congress would be extending its current recess by an additional two weeks due to the COVID-19 outbreak, but legislators would continue to work remotely until May 4 unless they needed to return to Washington, D.C., earlier than that to pass emergency measures related to the pandemic. For example, CNBC reported the following of the House Majority Leader's statement on scheduling: reported scheduling The House will not come back to Washington until at least May 4 unless it needs to pass emergency measures to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, Majority Leader Steny Hoyers office told representatives. The chamber previously expected lawmakers to return on April 20 after an extended absence. House members, most of whom have been in their districts for all of April as Covid-19 spreads, will not have to travel to Washington before May 4 absent an emergency, the Maryland Democrats office said. It added that lawmakers would get sufficient notice if they have to travel to Washington to vote on coronavirus legislation. Similarly, NPR reported the following of the Senate Majority Leader's statement on scheduling: reported Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the full Senate will not plan to return to the Capitol before May 4 -- a delay from a planned return [on April 20]. McConnell said the decision to change the schedule was made "following the advice of health experts" and in consultation with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. McConnell, R-Ky., stressed that Congress continues to work remotely to respond to the economic impact of the coronavirus. "As Senators continue working together from our home states, we must stay totally focused on fighting this pandemic and strengthening our nation. The coronavirus does not take days off and the United States Senate must not either, wherever we are," McConnell said in a written statement. The move follows a similar announcement a day earlier from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., informing members the House would not return until May 4. Both leaders indicated that if Congress needed to act quickly on something, members would be given at least 24 hours' notice. Here is the full announcement issued by U.S. Senate Majority Leader McConnell on April 14, 2020, regarding scheduling: announcement Since the Senate passed the historic CARES Act in late March, Senators have been working around the country to monitor its implementation and help our states and nation attack this pandemic. As the country continues working together to flatten the curve, following the advice of health experts, the full Senate is not expected to travel back to Washington D.C. sooner than Monday, May 4th. All members will receive at least 24 hours notice if this changes. This bipartisan decision reflects consultation with Leader Schumer and my colleagues in Senate leadership. As Senators continue working together from our home states, we must stay totally focused on fighting this pandemic and strengthening our nation. The coronavirus does not take days off and the United States Senate must not either, wherever we are. For example, the crucial Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which is literally saving millions of American jobs, will run dry this week if we do not pass more funding. While other CARES Act programs such as hospital funding and assistance for state governments are just beginning to push out money, 70% of the PPPs funding has been already allotted in just a week and a half. President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, and Senate and House Republicans simply want to add more funding for this job-saving program that both parties designed together. There is no time to insist on sweeping renegotiations or ultimatums about other policies that passed both houses unanimously. Clean funding for worker pay in a crisis should not be controversial. I hope our Democratic colleagues will let Congress act this week. American workers deserve paychecks, not pink slips caused by political games. And here is the scheduling announcement issued by U.S. House Majority Leader Hoyer: announcement Members are advised that absent an emergency, the House is not expected to meet prior to Monday, May 4, 2020. Members are further advised that if the House is required to take action on critical legislation related to the coronavirus response or other legislative priorities, Members will be given sufficient notice to return to Washington, DC. Further information will be provided as it becomes available. Congressional leaders also left open the possibility that members might return sooner than May 4 if pandemic-related legislation was ready to be voted upon:  Pramuk, Jacob.  "House Will Not Return to Washington Until May 4 Unless It Has to Pass Emergency Bill."
  CNBC.  13 April 2020. Walsh, Deirdre.  "Congress Won't Return Until May, As Talks Appear yo Stall on Small Business Aid."
  NPR.  13 April 2020. Christmas may be a time for giving, but it's also a time for scams. Internet swindlers attempt to take advantage of people's generosity during the holiday season with a variety of schemes. This is probablywhy some people looked at a request for Christmas cards for an 8-year-old burn victim named Safyre Terry with a skeptical eye. attempt schemes The request was originallyposted to Facebook by Kevin "Snapshot" Clark on 4 December 2015: posted Facebook users who were skeptical about Clark's request must have been a little extra wary when the account disappeared for a few hours on 8 December 2015. But this was not the result of any fraudulent activity:  result Last night Facebook shut my page down 6 hours... probably because of all the Safyre stuff (I was getting 50/minute friend requests! )... anyways, I made a new page BUT now don't need it. Ignore it. Today after I nap from working all night I'm meeting Liz Terry-Dolder and Safyre after she gets outta school at her PO BOX so we can all check her mail TOGETHER! *AND A REPORTER /PHOTOGRAPHER FROM THE SCHENECTADY GAZETTE WILL BE THERE TOO! PSYCHED!!! Liz Terry-Dolder The influx of activity on Clark's page was likely dueto Hulk Hogan's sudden involvement in the project. On 8 December 2015, the wrestler shared Clark's message with his loyal "maniacs": shared Alright maniacs let's make Safyre's Christmas Dream come true! All she wants is Christmas Cards from around the world, but a little extra Christmas magic wouldn't hurt!HH. The outpouring of support for Safyre Terry has been covered by multiple TV stations and news publications. And while a fundraising page has been set up to cover medical bills (anaspect that occasionally sets off the scam alert) this is a legitimate attempt to raise money for a young girl who suffered through a terrible ordeal. stations news publications fundraising On 2 May 2013, Terry survived a fire that killed her father and three siblings: survived Elizabeth Dolder never imagined Safyre Terry's stubborn ways might one day serve the girl well in her battle to stay alive. "She was a stubborn child, but that stubbornness is helping her through this," Dolder said of her niece. "She's going to get through this. I can't lose her, too." The 5-year-old girl, the only child to survive a ferocious house fire in Schenectady during the early morning hours of May 2 that claimed the lives of three of her siblings and her father, remains hospitalized in critical condition with severe burns to her tiny body. On 9 December 2015 Dodler, Terry's sole guardian, sent a thank you message out to all of the people who sent Christmas cards and donations: message BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE She did. When she said she can't wait to fill up the card tree my response was I don't think it's gonna get filled up but I am sure we will get a few more cards. She BELIEVED and ALL of YOU are making it happen. THANK YOU.....FAITH LOVE HOPE TO ALL Subsequent reportsshowedhuge piles of letters and cards: When this all began Sa'fyre wanted 100 Christmas cards. This is her latest delivery. Are you sitting down? I'll wait...Posted by John Gray Fox23 on Monday, December 14, 2015On 15 December 2015, a nonprofit organization called Baking Memories 4 Kids, which uses funds from cookies they sell to send children with life-threatening conditions on free vacations with their families, surprised Safyre with a trip to Walt Disney World.[article-meta] When this all began Sa'fyre wanted 100 Christmas cards. This is her latest delivery. Are you sitting down? I'll wait... Posted by John Gray Fox23 on Monday, December 14, 2015 John Gray Fox23 Monday, December 14, 2015 On 15 December 2015, a nonprofit organization called Baking Memories 4 Kids, which uses funds from cookies they sell to send children with life-threatening conditions on free vacations with their families, surprised Safyre with a trip to Walt Disney World. organization surprised  [article-meta] One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running.Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC'sThis Week With George Stephanopouloson July 12, 2009.The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet, Kyl told Stephanopoulos. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent.It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent.The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includesa graphshowing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased.As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent  a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly.But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True. Lions and zebras generally don't coexist completely peacefully in the wild. Photographs and videos of these animals together in the plains of Africa frequently depict stalking, hunting, chasing, fighting, and, of course, eating behaviors. That's probably why an image purportedly showing a lion and zebra sharing a moment of peace together at a watering hole is frequently shared with comments such as "unbelievable but true!":   This image has been shared with a variety of captions over the years, such as "It's not eating time," "Alex and Marty" (a reference to the animated zebra-lion friendship in the movie Madagascar), "National Geographic: Behind the Scenes," and "Morning Sam" (a reference to an old cartoon in which Ralph E. Wolf and Sam Sheepdog put their feud on hold when they clock out of work for the day): It's not eating time Alex and Marty National Geographic: Behind the Scenes Morning Sam  This picture however, is not an accurate representation of a lion and a zebra enjoying a moment at a watering hole. This image was digitally created for a 2010 advertisement for Traveler's Insurance. The general conceit of the advertisement was that while animals would normally be skittish at a watering hole (as predators might be nearby), Traveler's insurance company could "take the scary out of life" so that customers might enjoy the world in peace. Here's the description for the advertisement via Coloribus: Coloribus: This commercial featuring baboons, lions, zebras, crocodiles, vultures and all sorts of other animals getting along famously at what would normally be a very dangerous watering hole, is the first spot in the new 'Take the scary out of life' campaign from Travelers Insurance. The viral image may look genuine when it is viewed on its own, but in the context of the commercial (where it can be glimpsed around the 10-second mark) it's more clear the representation was created with the aid of digital editing:  Not only is this image a fabricated one, but the idea that watering holes serve as neutral safe-spaces for thirsty animals doesn't appear to be backed by much evidence. This idea most likely originated with, or at least was popularized by, a passage from Rudyard Kipling's The Second Jungle Book in which he described a "water truce" during a severe drought: water truce By the Law of the Jungle it is death to kill at the drinking-places when once the Water Truce has been declared. The reason of this is that drinking comes before eating. Every one in the Jungle can scramble along somehow when only game is scarce; but water is water, and when there is but one source of supply, all hunting stops while the Jungle People go there for their needs. In good seasons, when water was plentiful, those who came down to drink at the Waingunga  or anywhere else, for that matter  did so at the risk of their lives, and that risk made no small part of the fascination of the nights doings. This water truce played a part in Disney's live-action remake of the Jungle Book, released in 2016:  Lions sometimes won't attack typical prey animals for various reasons (e.g., they're severely outnumbered; they can't match the speed of the prey without first sneaking up on it), but if a lion is hungry, the concept of a waterhole "truce" isn't going to stop it. A 2013 study about the predatory habits of a group of lions in Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park found that the felines frequently hunted near watering holes, especially when resources were scarce, as such sites are frequented by a variety of prey: study Lion kills were located in a preferentially selected zone around artificial waterholes, suggesting that these scarce resources form passive traps for ungulate prey. Lions are stalk-and-ambush hunters that use vegetative cover for concealment during hunting and are known to ambush prey in habitats surrounding high-prey abundance areas. In the Hwange ecosystem, lion habitat selection and movements are driven by waterholes and lions appear to rotate their hunting behaviour between these different hunting grounds. Water sources are also considered crucial in lion habitat selection in the Serengeti and thought to act as passive traps for ungulates in the Kruger ecosystem. Contrary to our predictions, areas close to waterholes were highly selected for kills regardless of seasonal conditions. Conway-Smith, Erin.  "South Africa's Drought Is Bad for Hippos, Great for Lions."
  USA Today.  3 February 2016. 
 Kipling, Rudyard.  The Second Jungle Book.
  New York: Century, 1899.
 Davidson, Zeke.  "Seasonal Diet and Prey Preference of the African Lion in a Waterhole-Driven Semi-Arid Savanna."
  Plos One.  6 February 2013. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Sept. 13, 2021, rapper Nicki Minaj told her roughly 23 million Twitter followers that she knew of someone who supposedly got vaccinated against COVID-19 and then became impotent with swollen testicles. told her roughly COVID-19   The claim, which we address below, fueled news stories and social media chatter about a long-standing rumor: that COVID-19 vaccines can lead to infertility in both men and women. about a long-standing rumor That was not true, however. As of this writing, medical institutions  ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine  were aggressively attempting to combat false messages like Minaj's regarding infertility and vaccinations' alleged impact on reproductive systems, a process on which we elaborate below. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) American Society for Reproductive Medicine For people with female reproductive organs, the false theory stems from inoculations' real impact on recipients' immune systems. Vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer, for examples, use mRNA technology to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the virus that causes COVID-19, technically called SARS-CoV-2. mRNA technology fight the virus "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein  or even just a piece of a protein  that triggers an immune response inside our bodies," the CDC states. That said, some people erroneously believe that those vaccine-producedantibodies could somehow mistake the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein withsyncytin-1  a different type of cellular formation that helps develop placentas and is vital for successful pregnancies. They operate under the false argument that the two proteins (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and placenta protein) appear similar and, therefore, the inoculation's technology could easily confuse the two. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein However, as biochemistEdward Nirenberg explained in a December 2020 blog post, the formulas of molecules (called amino acids) that make the two proteins have very few similarities. For one, the SARS-CoV-2 strand is shorter than the placenta protein: The former has 1,273 amino acids, while the latter has has 538, as reported by India's National Magazine Frontline. Edward Nirenberg December 2020 ndia's National Magazine Frontline "There is no plausible reason  no medical or scientific mechanism  for this vaccine to interact with a woman's reproductive organs or have any interaction with an egg that's been released or fertilized," family medicine doctor Laura Morris said in a news bulletin by University of Missouri Health Care (MU Health Care)."For your immune system to get mixed up and attack the placental protein would be like you mistaking an elephant for an alley cat because they're both gray. news bulletin "There is one small similarity, but the overall construction of the protein is so completely different, your immune system is way too smart to be confused by that." Considering those biological facts, no reputable research has found COVID-19 vaccines complicate pregnancies or make it harder for women to conceive when studying the inoculations' impact on recipients' bodies. The CDC stated on its website, as of this writing: women to conceive   In other words, during clinical trials, unintended pregnancies occurred at similar rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, as Victoria Male, a researcher of reproductive immunology at Imperial College London, summarized in the British Medical Journal.And, atassisted reproduction clinics, fertility measures and pregnancy rates were also similar between the two groups. Victoria Male the British Medical Journal. Meanwhile, it was true that tens of thousands of people reported changes to their period cycle or unexpected bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations as reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC. reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC However, there was no evidence to link those menstrual changes to the vaccine recipients' fertility. Rather, the possible side effect appeared to be physical proof of how people's immune systems were responding to the vaccines  much like how some people have experienced a fever, chills, or headache after the shots. appeared to be Additionally, as Male wrote in the British Medical Journal, most people who reported the possible side effect said it was temporary and their cycles returned to normal the following month: wrote in the British Medical Journal, Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA [Pfizer and Moderna] and adenovirus vectored covid-19 vaccines [Johnson & Johnson],1 suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes.9 Indeed, the menstrual cycle can be affected by immune activation in response to various stimuli, including viral infection: in one study of menstruating women, around a quarter of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced menstrual disruption. 1 9 Maleand the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) were calling for more research into the potential connection between menstrual changes and the vaccinations. Male National Institute of Child Health and Human Development While the possible side effect was largely "short-lived" and unrelated to fertility, Male wrote, understanding its full scope could help alleviate concerns among young women who falsely believe that the vaccinations could hurt their chances of future pregnancy. "Failing to thoroughly investigate reports of menstrual changes after vaccination is likely to fuel these fears," Male stated. All of this said, experts in reproductive health recommend vaccinations for everyone who's thinking about becoming pregnant, already with child, or breastfeeding just like the rest of the population (over the age of 12). For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) said in a joint statement: statement As experts in reproductive health, we continue to recommend that the vaccine be available to pregnant individuals. We also assure patients that there is no evidence that the vaccine can lead to loss of fertility. While fertility was not specifically studied in the clinical trials of the vaccine, no loss of fertility has been reported among trial participants or among the millions who have received the vaccines since their authorization, and no signs of infertility appeared in animal studies. Loss of fertility is scientifically unlikely. Furthermore, medical experts saypeople who know they're pregnant should get the shots as soon as possible. That populationfaces a higher risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 compared to everyone else. (See the CDC's full list of underlying medical conditions that could exacerbate a COVID-19 viral infectionhere.) people who know they're pregnant faces a higher risk here "We have no logical reason to believe that the vaccine impacts fertility in any way, but we have plenty of evidence that pregnant individuals who become sick with COVID-19 get sicker, on average, than non-pregnant individuals," Cecilia Stuopis, the medical director of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical, said in an update. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical Also, asidefrom COVID-19's attack on pregnant people's respiratory system, evidence suggests the virusmay be linked to potentially life-threatening pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, according to theMIT Medicalupdate. AndMayo Clinic highlighted research that indicated pregnant women with COVID-19 were more likely to have premature births, cesarean deliveries, or babies that need neonatal care. preeclampsia MIT Medical Mayo Clinic "If you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant, contracting COVID-19 is almost certainly more dangerous than getting vaccinated," Stuopis said. Now, let's pivot to sperm. As of this writing, reputable medical institutions, including the CDC, were refuting rumors about male infertility by pointing to a study at the University of Miami in which researchers recruited 45 healthy men between the ages of 18 and 50 with no underlying reproductive issues. The researchers examined the characteristics of their sperm, including the amount of them and how they moved, before and after the men got Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. study at the University of Miami In conclusion, the study stated: "No man became azoospermic after the vaccine," or unable to produce sperm. azoospermic Meanwhile, Ranjith Ramasamy, the director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the university, highlighted evidence that suggests the virus  not its vaccinations  can affect sperm counts and cause impotency. He worked on a study, for example, that examined penile tissue samples from two men who had COVID-19, and found blood vessel damage that would make it hard for blood to enter the penis for an erection. Ranjith Ramasamy highlighted study "Interestingly, the male reproductive organs have been found to be vulnerable in moderate to severe illness, leading to reports of erectile dysfunction and orchitis," a condition that can result in swollen testicles, according to a summary byRamasamy and other researchers. condition Additionally, "the risk of infertility and erectile dysfunction increases with the severity of an infection," Daniel Nassau, a urologist at the university, told Frontline. Frontline The impact of COVID-19 infections aside, there was no scientific support for Minaj's claim that the vaccines  the technology that aims to combat the virus  caused impotency or orchitis among people with male reproductive systems."We've never seen that," Ramasamy toldThe Associated Press. The Associated Press Ashley Winter, a urologist specializing in sexual dysfunction at Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Oregon, also emphasized in an interview with thatnews outletthat there was no evidence to substantiate any concerns over the vaccinations' potential threat to male fertility. thatnews outlet "On a population level, hundreds of millions of men have gotten this vaccine, and there's no study showing reduced erectile function in men who have been vaccinated," she said. "Fundamentally, we just have no study linking the vaccine to either swollen testicles or erectile dysfunction." CDC. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/underlying-evidence-table.html. "CDC Newsroom." CDC, 1 Jan. 2016, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0811-vaccine-safe-pregnant.html. Does the COVID-19 Vaccine Affect Fertility? Here's What the Experts Say. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/does-covid-19-vaccine-affect-fertility-heres-what-experts-say. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Nirenberg, Edward. "Are COVID-19 Vaccines Going To Cause Infertility?" Medium, 16 Dec. 2020, https://edwardnirenberg.medium.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-going-to-cause-infertility-939bbdb62b64. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. I Want to Get Pregnant; Should I Avoid Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine? | MIT Medical. https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/02/want-to-get-pregnant-should-i-avoid-vaccine. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Medical Experts Continue to Assert That COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Fertility. https://www.acog.org/en/news/news-releases/2021/02/medical-experts-assert-covid-vaccines-do-not-impact-fertility. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Kresch, Eliyahu, et al. "COVID-19 Endothelial Dysfunction Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction: Histopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Study of the Human Penis." The World Journal of Men's Health, vol. 39, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 46669. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.210055. Welle, Deutsche. "COVID-19 Vaccines & the Unfounded Tale of Infertility." Frontline, https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/covid-19-vaccines-and-the-unfounded-tale-of-infertility/article35739037.ece. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. Ramasamy, Ranjith. "COVID-19 Could Cause Male Infertility and Sexual Dysfunction  but Vaccines Do Not." The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-cause-male-infertility-and-sexual-dysfunction-but-vaccines-do-not-164139. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. In February 2021, during U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland as President Joe Biden's nominee for attorney general, a widely shared tweet purported to capture a startlingly frank exchange between Garland and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The tweet, posted by @Roshan_Rinaldi on Feb. 22, contained a link to a PBS live video of the hearing, along with the following text: tweet Tom Cotton: "Can you make a commitment on resources?"Garland: "I don't make commitments unless I know the facts first."Cotton: "When we confirmed Bill Barr, he was able to make a commitment on resources. Why can't you do that now?"Garland: "Because I'm not a liar"   The tweet, which has since been deleted, was widely shared on Twitter and its text contents tweeted out by several users in separate tweets. It was also shared on the popular left-wing forum Democratic Underground. On Facebook, users enthusiastically shared screenshots of it in the hours and days that followed. The following screenshot demonstrates the popularity of the post on Facebook in February 2021: several users shared shared   In reality, Garland never called former Attorney General Bill Barr "a liar." Nor did he describe him in a way that could fairly be summarized in that way. The tweet paraphrased a real line of questioning from Cotton but grossly misrepresented both the wording and tone of Garland's response. @Roshan_Rinaldi's tweet was particularly misleading because it not only misrepresented Garland's utterances in response to Cotton's questioning, but also used quotation marks, thereby presenting the exchange between Cotton and Garland as a direct quotation, which it certainly was not. During a confirmation hearing on Feb. 22, Garland, a U.S. Circuit Court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, faced questioning from Republican senators about the future of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump asked Durham to investigate whether federal investigators engaged in wrongdoing or criminality during the early stages of investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Trump gave Durham the title and powers of a special counsel.  John Durham special counsel In particular, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and later Cotton, asked Garland whether he would commit to providing Durham the resources he required in order to complete his investigation. Garland demurred, and both Grassley and Cotton pointed out (accurately) that Barr, during his confirmation hearings in January 2019, was willing to make such a commitment to continuing and resourcing the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. accurately In order to provide the full and proper account of what Garland actually said about Barr (or rather, did not say), the following are excerpted transcripts and videos of his exchanges with Grassley and then Cotton: Grassley: I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to Mueller's investigation: "It's virtually [read: vitally] important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation." Also, at that same hearing, Sen. Feinstein asked: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?" Attorney General Barr answered Sen. Feinstein with a one-word "Yes." With respect to Special Counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation? vitally Garland: Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation, as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going. I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.  Grassley: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that [means] he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position? Garland: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.   Later, Cotton followed up on Grassley's line of questioning, and the following exchange took place: Cotton: I want to return to Sen. Grassley's questions about the Durham investigation. Sen. Grassley asked you if you would commit, specifically, to ensure that John Durham had the staff, the resources and the time that he needed to complete that investigation. You said you didn't have the info yet, that you needed to speak to him, but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision  Garland: That's correct, Sir, yes. Cotton: Why can't you commit, specifically, to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? Garland: Well, again, it's because I'm sitting here and I don't have any information about what he needs, in his resources and the allocation of resources. But my  everything I know, sitting here, suggests that he should of course have those resources. Cotton: Judge, two years ago Bill Barr made that exact commitment about the Mueller special counsel [investigation]. He did not have that information, he had not consulted with the department. He was in the same posture you are. He simply said "Yes." Why can't you say "Yes" today, the way Bill Barr did two years ago? Garland: Again, my view about every investigation and every decision I make is I have to know the facts before I can make those kind of decisions. I don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, I have to be there and learn what's going on, before I can make a decision. But as I said, I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place, and to continue his investigation, was in any way wrong. Cotton: Was it wrong for Bill Barr to make that commitment two years ago? Garland: Again, as I said, Senator, I'm not going to be making judgements about my predecessors. I don't think there's any purpose in that for myself. I want you to judge me on my own record and what I do going forward. Cotton: Was it wrong for Democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that Bill Barr make that commitment two years ago? Garland: I think my answer would be the same.  As the videos and transcripts show, far from calling Barr "a liar" or saying words to that effect, Garland actually repeatedly refused openings to criticize Barr in any way. The wording presented in the viral tweet was inaccurate, and the underlying claim that Garland attacked Barr's honesty was a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said.