Did Hillary Clinton Suppress Haiti's Minimum Wage?
Haiti's relationship with the United States and Europe can most charitably be described as complicated. Haiti's earliest days were characterized by oppression and opposition: the country (once the French colony of St. Domingue) was born from a successful slave insurgency and declared its independence in 1804. This beginning characterized an often-antagonistic relationship between countries that profited handsomely from African slavery (such as the United States) and Haiti. Foremost among fears about Haiti was that slaves would learn successful uprisings were possible. insurgency profited After Haiti formally declared its independence, the United States suspended all diplomatic and trade relationships with the country. While the U.S. eventually re-opened trading routes, America didn't recognize Haiti diplomatically for nearly sixty years after that. Other countries followed the United States' example (and France demanded millions of francs in reparations for its rebellion in exchange for recognizing Haiti as a sovereign nation) plunging Haiti into debt and an economic depression that lasted for years, from which the country never fully recovered. eventually Multiple invasions and economic and political tinkering followed, leaving Haiti in a turmoil of political instability and corruption, economic crisis, and a ravaged infrastructure, historically one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, despite its fertile land and ability to grow cash crops such as sugar. tinkering poorest Today, child labor and trafficking are endemic in Haiti, particularly in the country's manufacturing sector, which is outsourced to foreign companies (many of them contractors for American companies, such as Hanes, Dockers, and Fruit of the Loom). Even when they are not trafficked, laborers in Haiti's garment industry earn a pittance by the standards of other countries: the minimum wage was $0.24 (USD) an hour for many years. trafficking In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti's government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti's president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day). estimated lower In 2011, WikiLeaks released a set of previously-secret diplomatic cables. The American publication The Nation partnered with Haitian news organization Hati Libert to cover them, finding (among other things) how strongly the United States had opposed the minimum wage hike: WikiLeaks partnered Hati Libert cover among other things To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President Ren Prval. A more visible and active engagement by Prval may be critical to resolving the issue of the minimum wage and its protest spin-offor risk the political environment spiraling out of control, argued US Ambassador Janet Sanderson in a June 10, 2009, cable back to Washington. Two months later Prval negotiated a deal with Parliament to create a two-tiered minimum wage increaseone for the textile industry at about $3 per day and one for all other industrial and commercial sectors at about $5 per day. Still the US Embassy wasn't pleased. A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum did not take economic reality into account but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to the unemployed and underpaid masses. The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) had been closely monitoring the situation in the garment manufacturing sector for a long time. In 2006, Congress passed the HOPE bill (which stood for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) and provided duty-free entry to garments manufactured in Haiti for U.S. companies. That body also passed an updated version of the bill (HOPE II) in 2008, which mandated a framework for labor reform in factories. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, it was exactly these efforts that the United States claimed would be jeopardized by a higher minimum wage. HOPE HOPE II higher  So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate. A law establishing a new minimum wage of $5.11 per workday ($0.64 an hour) was finally approved in 2014, which still fell far short of both the demanded raise by workers (to the equivalent of $11.36 per workday, or $1.42 per hour) and the recommended daily wage of 1,006 Haitian gourdes, or USD$22.86. approved recommended gourdes Related rumors of the Clintons' relationship to Haiti appeared in October 2016, this time alleging that after the Haiti's infrastructure was devastated by a major earthquake in 2010, the State Department steered relief contracts to personal friends of the Clintons. However, while Hillary Clinton did recommend specific companies to help with the rebuilding process and e-mails have surfaced indicating that special attention was given to "FoBs" ("Friends of Bill"), there's no evidence that the United States government awarded contracts to any of those contenders. earthquake recommend e-mails evidence Alexander, Leslie.  "A Pact with the Devil? The United States and the Fate of Modern Haiti."
  Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, Vol. 4, Issue 5.  February 2011. Coughlin, Dan and Kim Ives.  "Let Them Live on $3 a Day."
  The Nation.  1 June 2011. Dubois, Laurent.  "Haiti: The Aftershocks of History."
  Metropolitan Books: Henry Holt and Company, 2012. U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian.  "Milestones: 1784-1800: The United States and the Haitian Revolution."
  Accessed 5 April 2016. Federal Procurement Data System.  "Haiti Earthquake Report."
  Accessed 5 April 2016. Apr. 6, 2016: Statements were added to the What's True and What's False fields of this article to better explicate its rating. Oct. 7, 2016: This article was modified to incorporate a related rumor, to adjust the wording of the subhead and claim, and to add supplementary sources.  Jan. 12, 2018: The rating for this article was adjusted from true to  to better reflect post-publication revisions.
In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) holding that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year, while in a number of other first-world countries, bankruptcies over medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those other countries):   At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably the item in question was a 19 July 2013 item published by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article held that: In 2013 over 20% of American adults are struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obamas universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," then we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). bankruptcy Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure: item  Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on how reliable is the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site said their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of a bankruptcy filers: BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet themselves reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in aJanuary 2016 New York Times article on the subject: article Research on medical bankruptcies has been controversial because it can be hard to untangle how medical bills fit into a familys overall pattern of financial troubles. Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said theyd taken on extra work to help pay bills.) Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem? said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New Yorks Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. Its both of those things. However, that article also factored in a large development that occurred after NerdWallet's 2013 analysis: the activation of major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare): The [ACA] has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare, which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble. Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on peoples daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills dont just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: article So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy? It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt, Prof. Austin said in an interview. Plenty of studies have pinpointed medical debt as the No. 1 reason why people turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start. In rallying for health-care reform in his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that 62.1% of consumer bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies, citing a study Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) co-wrote as a Harvard law professor. Prof. Austins study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.  But even prior to the implementation of the ACA, some sources questioned the true impact of medical debt on bankruptcy rates. A 2012 piece published by The Hill compared rates of bankruptcy between the United States and Canada (the latter a country with single-payer healthcare system): compared It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care ... Will ObamaCare's increased regulation of the healthcare marketplace help put an end to the phenomenon? Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not. Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential cause of bankruptcy  the cost of health care  absorbed by the government. But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year. Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors  those 55 and older  cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. Canada wasn't the only country in which the presence of single-payer healthcare reportedly wasn't a total shield against bankruptcies (medical-related or otherwise). A 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) paper [PDF] found that: PDF Outside of the US, research on links between over-indebtedness and health has been quite limited to date, consisting largely of rankings of factors in consumer debt. For instance, within the United Kingdom, sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002. A ranking of causes of over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy in Germany found that psychological problems and own sickness, if added together, would rank in fourth place of reasons for over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy. There have been a number of interesting recent studies in Germany on the subject. These have found a high risk of mental disorders among those facing the threat of over-indebtedness as well as the association of over-indebtedness with an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity apart from traditional socioeconomic factors. Additionally, there is evidence that over-indebted persons refrain from seeking medical treatment or purchasing prescriptions even under Germanys health system. One-third of participants in a study of insolvency counseling services in RhinelandPalatinate indicated that their financial difficulties were a result of accident, illness or addiction. In short, using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it's far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies.  Emami, Sarah.  "Consumer Over-Indebtedness and Health Care Costs:
How to Approach the Question from a Global Perspective."
  World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 3.  2010. Himmelstein, David U. et. al.  "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study."
  American Journal of Medicine.  12 April 2009. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  19 June 2013. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  26 March 2014. Luthra, Shefali.  "Consumers Still Struggling with Medical Debt."
  USA Today.  1 February 2015. Mangan, Dan.  "Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study."
  CNBC.  25 June 2013. Pipes, Sally C.  "Medical Bankruptcy: Fact or Fiction?"
  The Hill.  23 October 2012. Sanger-Katz, Margot.  "Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt, Study Finds."
  Thne New York Times.  5 January 2016. Stech, Katy.  "The Future of Personal Bankruptcy in a Post-Obamacare World."
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 July 2015. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.  "Growing Old Gracefully, An Investigation Into the Growing Number of Bankrupt Canadians Over Age 55."
  31 March 2006. The October 2016 WikiLeaks series "The Podesta Emails" gave readers an inside look at operations in the Democratic Party by publishing the communications of Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta, and one rumor connected with that e-mail dump held that one of those documents revealed in part that President Obama had "directed his supporters" to engage in "a little all-American voter fraud." Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of WikiLeaks documents is rife, and the phrasing about "a little all-American voter fraud" came not from the actual text of one of the released documents but from a blog post about the WikiLeaks documents: blog post Wikileaks has done an amazing job of revealing to the American people just how screwed up and corrupt our government really is, at all levels. The most recent revelation comes from the very top, and shows that Obama may have directed his supporters in Colorado to engage in a little all-American voter fraud. In the email, John Podesta discussed his meeting to two Coloradans who made it clear that they wanted help in making sure that only legal and living people were allowed to vote in the 2015 caucuses. A search of WikiLeaks returns zero results for the "all-American voter fraud" phrasing: zero results  As with many purported WikiLeaks revelations, the blog included not a link to the complete underlying document but only a screenshot of an out-of-context e-mail along with commentary about it: screenshot  That e-mail was dated 14 May 2015, pertained to the upcoming 2016 Democratic caucuses in Colorado (eventually won by Bernie Sanders), and referenced unproven rumors that back in 2008 the Obama campaign had supposedly "flooded" the Iowa caucuses with ineligible voters from out of state: High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region A December 2007 Politico article examined the claim made by a Clinton aide at the time that the Obama campaign was trying to "manipulate the Iowa caucuses" by "busing in students from out of state": article A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, drew a distinction between her campaign's approach to college campuses and Obama's, amplifying Yepsen's criticism of the Obama campaign. Theres a big difference here. We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out of state people. We dont have literature recruiting out of state college students. We didnt bus in folks from out of state to the JJ. We didnt bring in out of state activists to the Heartland Forum. An Obama aide also pointed out that there's no evidence his campaign was busing in students from out of state, while my colleague Ben Adler reported that Clinton volunteers from out of state were planning to come back to caucus (it's unclear to him how organized this effort is) and the Clinton campaign did email out a call for volunteers to come from other midwestern states prior to the Jefferson Jackson dinner. Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to this controversy by saying: Rather than denigrating the caucus rights of students who go to school in Iowa, we would suggest the Clinton campaign organize them. Their attack here is borne out of pure political frustration. Iowans are determined to launch a winning candidate for the Democratic Party to bring real change for our country. They will not be deterred by efforts to dampen participation and 11th-hour attacks. In March 2016, the Clinton campaign allegedly repurposed these rumors and claimed Bernie Sanders' campaign was "busing in" ineligible voters to party caucuses. Sanders dismissed the rumor as a recycled smear used by David Brock: busing in Really? Based on what do they say that? Based on David Brock's long history of honest and integrity? The man who tried to destroy Anita Hill? Is that where this is coming from? Everyone of you know, you know it, that every day you're being flooded by all this negative stuff from Sec. Clinton's super PAC. I haven't heard of that. I don't want my integrity and honesty to be impugned. I have no idea who says this, that is a lie. An absolute lie. We will win or lose, we do it honestly, and I really dislike people suggesting we're going to bring in students from out of state who are going to perjure themselves, and say they are from Iowa? That's, talk about negative stuff, this is what ... Again, I don't think this is the Secretary ... but you bring people like David Brock ... into your campaign ... if this is the kinda stuff that they're planting, that's negative stuff. No e-mail released by WikiLeaks quoted John Podesta (or anyone else) saying that President Obama had engaged in (or suggested his supporters engage in) "a little all-American voter fraud" in Colorado. In 2015 Podesta referenced uncorroborated rumors from the 2008 campaign holding that President Obama had flooded the Iowa caucuses (not the Colorado caucuses, not any 2016 caucuses, and not any general election polling places) with ineligible voters during his run against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Smith, Ben.  "Clinton Aide: Obama Trying To 'Manipulate The Iowa Caucuses.'"
  Politico.  1 December 2007. Claim:  Target is distributing free $500 vouchers or $1000 gift cards to users who click an online link.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] There is a Facebook post that states if you share a Target ad that says get a free $500 Target voucher, write the comment, "Thank you Target" and the click like you will get a voucher for that amount. Get Free $500 target voucher Now (97 Left)  text message received: "Your entry last month has WON! Go to https://targetcontest.com/ and enter code 4787 to claim your FREE $1000 Target Gift Card within 24 hours!"   Origins:  In mid-November 2012, a survey scam purporting to offer free $500 Target vouchers or $1000 gift cards to those who followed particular links then did as told once there spread via e-mail, Facebook, and text message. Those links led to web pages (which were not operated or sponsored by Target) that asked the unwary to click what appeared to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which was really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who followed such instructions were then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" gift card offer stated that by accepting its terms, the user agreed to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies. Other recent survey scams of similar construction include:  $500 or $1,000 Target gift cards [November 2012] Target  $100 or $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart  $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks  $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons  Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple Last updated:  24 November 2012    CBS 4 [Denver].  "Walmart Gift Card Text Hits Phones Across Denver Metro Area."   7 March 2012. 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 In the first few months of 2020, as the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic sprouted in China, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published figures showing a drop of about 21 million cellphone users and 840,000 landline users. According to The Associated Press, online data published by Chinas three largest cellphone carriers indicated that for January and February 2020, China Mobile Ltd. reported a drop of nearly 7.25 million subscribers, while China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd. lost 7.8 million subscribers and China Telecom Corp. lost 5.6 million in February alone. published figures As of April 2020, China had reported a total of about 81,000 COVID-19 cases and about 3,300 deaths from the disease. Some sources seized on the disparity between the numbers of afflicted and cellphone subscribers to assert that the true COVID-19 death in China had been concealed and vastly underreported. reported "21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll," proclaimed a headline in The Epoch Times. "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths," declared the Panam Post: headline The Epoch Times declared  It is true that intelligence officials outside of China believe that the country's government has understated the spread of the coronavirus and the damage the pandemic has caused there, as The New York Times, among others, reported in early April 2020: reported The C.I.A. has been warning the White House since at least early February that China has vastly understated its coronavirus infections and that its count could not be relied upon as the United States compiles predictive models to fight the virus, according to current and former intelligence officials. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Chinese government itself does not know the extent of the virus and is as blind as the rest of the world. Midlevel bureaucrats in the city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, and elsewhere in China have been lying about infection rates, testing and death counts, fearful that if they report numbers that are too high they will be punished, lose their position or worse, current and former intelligence officials said. Bureaucratic misreporting is a chronic problem for any government, but it has grown worse in China as the Communist leadership has taken a more authoritarian turn in recent years under Mr. Xi. The Times reported again the following day that Chinese officials appeared to be pushing for quick burials of the dead and suppressing online discussion of fatalities in order to head off public opprobrium over the government's handling of the coronavirus outbreak: following day For months, the residents of Wuhan had been told they could not pick up the ashes of their loved ones who had died during the height of Chinas coronavirus outbreak. Now that the authorities say the epidemic is under control, officials are pushing the relatives to bury the dead quickly and quietly, and they are suppressing online discussion of fatalities as doubts emerge about the true size of the toll. Chinas official death toll from the coronavirus stood at 3,322 on [April 3], but medical workers and others have suggested the count should be higher ... As China tries to control the narrative, the police in Wuhan, where the pandemic began, have been dispatched to break up groups on WeChat, a popular messaging app, set up by the relatives of coronavirus victims. Government censors have scrubbed images circulating on social media showing relatives in the city lining up at funeral homes to collect ashes. Officials have assigned minders to relatives to follow them as they pick burial plots, claim their loved ones remains and bury them, grieving family members say. The ruling Communist Party says it is trying to prevent large gatherings from causing a new outbreak. But its tight controls appear to be part of a concerted attempt to avoid an outpouring of anguish and anger that could be a visceral reminder of its early missteps and efforts to conceal the outbreak. Those same public displays or discussions of loss could also feed skepticism over how China has counted the dead. Still, to believe that the drop in cellphone subscriptions experienced by Chinese carriers corresponds directly to unreported coronavirus deaths, one would have to believe that the Chinese government managed to misreport COVID-19 mortality in that country by a factor of about 7,000 ... and then let the cat out of the bag by openly publishing statistics about cellphone usage that revealed those unreported deaths. Perhaps some correlation exists, but as The Associated Press reported, the drop in cellphone subscriptions in China could also be attributable to reasons other than millions of subscribers' succumbing to COVID-19: reported A representative with China Mobile Ltd. said while the situation was related to the COVID-19 outbreak, it was not related to deaths, but changes in lifestyle. It was mainly due to reduced business and social activities resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, a spokesperson with the company confirmed to the AP. Many customers in China have multiple SIM cards and it is common that they use their non-primary SIM cards to do these activities. A China Unicom representative acknowledged the difficult market forces at work: For the first two months of 2020, [we were] facing challenges such as market saturation, keen market competition and the novel coronavirus outbreak ..." Hao, Nicole.  "21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll."
  The Epoch Times.  22 March 2020. Flor, Mamela Fiallo.  "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths."
  Panam Post.  6 April 2020. Lajka, Arijeta,  "Drop in Cellphone Users in China Wrongly Attributed to Coronavirus Deaths."
  The Associated Press.  30 March 2020. Qin, Amy and Cao Li.  "China Pushes for Quiet Burials as Coronavirus Death Toll Is Questioned."
  The New York Times.  3 April 2020. Barnes, Julian E.  "C.I.A. Hunts for Authentic Virus Totals in China, Dismissing Government Tallies."
  The New York Times.  2 April 2020. Claim:  President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2010]  Is it true that "one of the first things Bill Clinton did in office was to issue an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases"?   Origins:  The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at  Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty. While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts. It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel.  That directive was eventually implemented through a  regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army  (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.   directive regulation Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried": a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed. c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners. Others noted that the change in policy likely had little actual effect on day-to-day base operations: Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame. "I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military," said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. "I think that's kind of a bogus story." "We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones," he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority. Last updated:  16 July 2015 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 As COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to Americans in spring 2021, anti-vaccine groups attempted to frame the shots' manufacturers as untrustworthy to try to stop people from getting inoculated. COVID-19 Below is a sample of such claims  all from a single meme  that we fact-checked using reputable sources such as court records, resources distributed by the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the vaccine manufacturers' websites.   All in all, the meme stated facts about companies that have developed COVID-19 vaccines but failed to demonstrate how those histories are relevant to the safety or effectiveness of the manufacturers' solutions for ending the pandemic.   Firstly, in an attempt to persuade people against the two-dose Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the meme alleged the New York-based company faced almost $5 billion in penalties for supposedly breaking laws while manufacturing or distributing unidentified products.  "Pfizer: $4.7 billion in fines for false claims, drug and medical equipment safety violations, off-label promotion, corrupt practices, kickbacks, and bribery," according to the meme. The claim was factually accurate. But its implication  that, because of prior lawsuits, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines were potentially unsafe  was unsubstantiated, a conclusion on which we elaborate below. As one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations, Pfizer's multiple subsidiaries (which produce a range of drugs, including Advil, the erectile disfunction drug Viagra, and the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor) indeed faced penalties totaling about $4.7 billion over the years, according to Good Jobs First, a left-leaning watchdog group tracking corporate subsidies. left-leaning Those cases, which originated in jurisdictions nationwide, essentially included the above-listed offenses involving all sorts of products between 2000 and 2019, according to Good Jobs First's database. above-listed offenses For instance, in 2004, the Warner-Lambert company  which Pfizer acquired four years earlier  pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the epilepsy drug Neurontin "even when scientific studies had shown it was not effective," the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a statement. illegally marketing statement Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million, said that it "cooperated fully with the government to resolve this matter," and stressed the alleged violations occurred before Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert. agreed said Then, in 2009, the company paid the largest settlement for health care fraud to date, totaling $2.3 billion, according to the DOJ.  DOJ. In that case, the company's subsidy Pharmacia & Upjohn Company pleaded guilty to promoting a painkiller Bextra "for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns," and paid a $1.3 billion criminal fine, the DOJ said in a statement. Bextra had been taken off the market four years earlier. statement had been taken off Additionally, Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve civil claims regarding not only Bextra but also the antipsychotic Geodon, the antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic drug Lyrica, per the statement. Pfizer denied all of those accusations, aside from acknowledging the improper promotion of Zyvox, Reuters reported at the time. Reuters reported Shortly after reaching the historic settlement, the company's general counsel told reporters that it regretted "certain actions in the past," but was proud of the action it had taken to strengthen its internal oversight. told reporters But here's how the meme misled people: It lacked critical evidence to show how those cases against Pfizer were relevant to COVID-19 vaccines, pictured below.    It also failed to acknowledge that clinical trials have shown the vaccines to be safe and effective. In December 2020, the FDA issued what's called an "Emergency Use Authorization" that deemed a COVID-19 vaccine created by Pfizer and BioNTech, as well as one manufactured by competitor Moderna, safe and effective enough for mass production. December 2020 Emergency Use Authorization BioNTech Moderna The CDC's advisory committee on immunizations also recommended the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, along with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) formulas. (Here's the CDC's explanation for how vaccines like Pfizer's  which uses mRNA technology  attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the coronavirus, if necessary.) CDC's advisory committee (Here's the CDC's explanation mRNA technology Early on, clinical trials showed the Pfizer vaccine 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. The company confirmed "high efficacy and no serious safety concerns" after a March 2021 follow-up study. 95% effective confirmed follow-up study Because of those results, the FDA expanded Pfizer's eligible vaccine population to include adolescents between the ages of 12 to 15 in mid-May. Also, at that time, Pfizer and Moderna were seeking the FDA's full, regular authorization for their inoculation formulas. That status, which requires at least six months of patient data, would allow the companies to begin marketing the shots. Pfizer and Moderna  full, regular authorization In other words, if or when the FDA grants the Pfizer vaccine full approval, the company "can advertise on TV and promote their products under the watchful eye of the FDA," former FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf told CNBC. told CNBC To conclude our research, we reached out to Pfizer's communication's department with the following questions: No one has answered our inquiry, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. In sum, we rate the claim regarding Pfizer a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. It was an accurate depiction of the company's alleged violations involving a handful of its numerous drugs over years. However, no evidence connected those offenses with COVID-19 vaccines nor showed Pfizer had made false claims about, or illegally promoted, its vaccine.  Next, in attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the meme claimed the Massachusetts-based company had tried numerous times to develop vaccines for mass production prior to the pandemic with no success. "Moderna: Has never brought a vaccine to market since its founding, despite fielding 9+ vaccine candidates, none of which made it through phase 3 clinical trials," the meme alleged. Similarly to the Pfizer allegation, the claim was rooted in truth. But the statement failed to explain how it was relevant to Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, as well as erroneously implied the company's other vaccines did not reach mass distribution solely because of shortcomings in the products themselves, such as their effect on patients or alleged lack of success preventing viral outbreaks. Rather, other barriers  such as a lack of funding for research  also played a role in the pharmaceutical company's vaccine history. In addition to the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna has developed nine prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology since its founding in 2010, according to the company's website. The company describes mRNA "like software for the cell" with the potential to fighting many diseases. prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology company's website like software for the cell In April 2020, before the FDA granted emergency authorization of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, BioSpace reported: BioSpace reported So far, Moderna has conducted early trials with success on nine vaccine candidates, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and parainfluenza virus (PIV3), influenza H7N9, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Zika, Epstein-Barr, chikungunya. [...] However, the meme was accurate in claiming none of those experimental immunizations (aside from the COVID-19 vaccine) progressed past Phase II clinical trails. That's the stage after researchers test a product on an initial group of people and want to see how it affects a larger sample. (See the FDA's website for more differences between phases of clinical research, and see here for Moderna's process for developing and testing its mRNA vaccines.) test a product clinical research here for Moderna's process for Here's Moderna's visualization of its various vaccines and their development:   But, as you can see, Moderna's Influenza H7N9 vaccine was only advancing "subject to funding," negating the meme's implication that the company halted development solely due to safety concerns or ineffectiveness. Furthermore, Moderna's Cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine was the first of its kind to enter a Phase II clinical trial, showed "promising" results so far, and was scheduled to progress in 2021, The Medicine Maker reported. Studies on the company's other immunizations remained ongoing, too. Phase II clinical trial The Medicine Maker Similar to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the Moderna shot was 94% effective in preventing recipients from catching the virus. 94% effective Lastly, Snopes contacted representatives of Moderna with the following questions: Pending answers to those questions, we will update this report. In short, the meme factually stated that the COVID-19 vaccine was Moderna's first inoculation to reach mass production. However, it simultaneously implied, without evidence to substantiate the claim, that the company's other vaccines stalled due to their effects on test patients. For those reasons, we rate the claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Much like the meme's claim about Pfizer, its allegation that Johnson & Johnson was "named in hundreds of thousands of lawsuits for toxic and/or dangerous products, including drugs, shampoos, medical equipment, and asbestos-contaminated baby powder" was at least partially accurate at face value. asbestos-contaminated baby powder But the post failed to provide substantial evidence to prove how, or to what extent, that fact was relevant to the safety of the company's COVID-19 vaccine. Let us explain. In fall 2020, Johnson & Johnson indeed paid over $100 million to resolve more than 1,000 lawsuits claiming that the pharmaceutical giant's banned powder and talc products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination, Bloomberg reported. Some 20,000 pending cases made similar accusations. Bloomberg reported Additionally, unrelated lawsuits alleged the company violated medical equipment or drug safety guidelines, among other offenses, according to Good Jobs First, the corporate accountability watchdog. For instance, one investigation concluded the company did not fully disclose the risks of devices to support women's prolapsed pelvic organs, according to The Gaurdian. Good Jobs First The Gaurdian Let us note here: The exact number of lawsuits that named the company for allegedly selling "toxic and/or dangerous products" since its founding was unknown, which meant the meme's reference to "hundreds of thousands" of cases was unsubstantiated. No violation listed in the Good Jobs First database was related to Johnson & Johnson's single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, which the FDA approved months after Pfizer's and Moderna's, in early 2021. approved Instead of using mRNA technology, the J&J shot takes the form of whats called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing, and discuss below) uses that same process. The J&J shot was about 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 from infecting recipients during clinical trials, according to the CDC. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 according to the CDC That said, J&J's immunization was not without controversy. In mid-April, mass vaccination sites in states including Georgia, Colorado, and North Carolina temporarily halted the shot's distribution after a few recipients felt dizzy, light-headed, and faint. The CDC monitored the reports and continued to recommend the shot's use. temporarily halted Then, shortly later, the CDC recommended all vaccine providers nationwide to temporarily halt giving out the J&J shot while health officials investigated a potential blood clotting issue that occurred in seven cases out of 6.8 million shots administered. recommended That pause ended on April 23, when the CDC said in a statement: said in a statement We reached out to J&J with the following questions: We will update this report when, or if, the company responds. In conclusion, we also rated the meme's statements about J&J a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. While it was a mostly factual representation of the company's alleged lawsuits over the years, nothing linked those cases with the company's COVID-19 immunization nor showed that the product included toxic or dangerous ingredients, like the meme implied. Of all of the meme's claims, the assertion about AstraZeneca was the least misleading. It was a direct reference to the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine (which is not currently in use in the U.S. and was developed in partnership with Oxford University) instead of an out-of-context fact pertaining to other pharmaceutical products. not currently "AstraZeneca: Suspended by two dozen European countries due to severe, lethal adverse reactions, like blood clots," the post alleged. lethal Yes, in spring 2021, a number of European countries (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.) temporarily suspended rollouts of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after reports of patients developing blood clots. Less than 40 cases of blood clots were reported out of the 17 million vaccine recipients, according to AstraZeneca.  Denmark Norway Iceland Bulgaria according to AstraZeneca Reputable sources, including Snopes, said "more than a dozen European countries" issued the suspension  not "two dozen," like the meme claimed. Reputable sources Snopes Additionally, the meme's use of the phrase "due to" discredited its message. Rather, AstraZeneca, health officials, the World Health Organization (WHO) and government regulatory bodies all said there was no causal link between the vaccine formula and the patients' blood clots. "In fact, nearly every country that issued a suspension acknowledged that it had no evidence the vaccine had caused the blood clots," NBC reported at the time. "Health experts have pointed out that the people most likely to currently be receiving COVID-19 vaccinations are also more likely to have other health problems, which could put them at higher risk for blood clots." reported at the time See our fact check into the matter here. here Since then, many European countries restarted their programs after the European Medicine Agency dubbed the AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective" despite the blood-clot reports. EMA said in a statement: European Medicine Agency In other words, we rate the meme's claim regarding AstraZeneca a "Mixture" of false and factual information. It was true that a number of European countries temporarily suspended the use of the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine after a handful of recipients reported blood clots. But no evidence proved those thromboembolic issues were a direct, adverse affect of the vaccine (rather than unrelated medical issues), and several countries restarted their AstraZeneca vaccination programs since the brief halt. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke is blaming Gov. Greg Abbott for high inflation in Texas, taking a page out of the GOP playbook in attacking President Joe Biden. O'Rourke released anInstagram videoon April 23 with the caption, Greg Abbott is the single greatest driver of inflation in the state of Texas. TV news clips were stitched together with clips of O'Rourke speaking. In one clip in the montage, O'Rourke says, Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion. O'Rourke went on to say, When you add this to the other inflation that he's causing ...  with more clips pointing to electricity bills,traffic backups at the border in April due to additional commercial vehicle inspections Abbott ordered that he said would improve border security, and the rising costs of internet and phone for rural Texans. Overall, O'Rourke is saying Abbott is exacerbating consumer prices in Texas, which were already rising nationwide. We looked at one component of the ad: that jaw-dropping number of a $20 billion increase in property taxes. Is it true? Nationally, inflation hit a 40-year highaccording to March data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prompting criticism of Biden, especially as inflationrelates to government spending. O'Rourke's campaign pointed to aTexas Taxpayers and Research Association reporttitled Relief from Rising Values: 2019 Property Tax Reforms Cutting Tax Rates at a Record Pace. The report looked at the effects of legislation by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, and state Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, that overhauled the school finance system and local government budgeting practices and tamped down property tax increases for Texans. The association found property taxes are continuing to rise, but at a slower rate. The campaign pointed specifically to a figure in the report depicting Texas local property taxes from 2011 to 2021. Property taxes levied were just over $50 billion in 2015, when Abbott took office, and just over $70 billion in 2021. The difference is about a $20 billion increase. Data on estimated revenue from local property taxes is available on the state comptroller's website. According to the2018-19 biennial reporton property taxes by the comptroller's office, property taxes totaled $52.2 billion in 2015. Comptroller data on school district, city, county and special district property taxes indicatethere was an estimated $73 billion in property taxes collected statewide in 2021. That's at least a $20 billion increase and in line with the analysis by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. In the six years before Abbott's election, property taxes increased to a lesser extent, but that property tax growth was constrained by the Great Recession. To note, while O'Rourke is appealing to voters who may also be homeowners, both commercial and residential property taxes are included here. Austin Community Collegeeconomics professor Stuart Greenfield, whose state government career included work with economic models and how Texas distributes money to school districts, said just over half of the 2019 school district taxable value of property was single-family and multifamily homes. The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association is a lobbying organization that primarily spends its money on research. Its policy advocacy has a fiscal conservative bent, the association's President Dale Craymer said, but the organization doesn't advocate for the policies of one party over the other. Craymer said O'Rourke spoke correctly of the group's report based on the data it analyzed from the comptroller's office. The implication of O'Rourke's ad, however, is that Abbott is responsible for rising property taxes. Craymer said the role of state government is indirect at best when it comes to property taxes because rates are set locally and not by the governor or Legislature. Basically, the process by which rates are set and adopted is laid out in state law, Craymer said. The Legislature and the governor obviously are responsible for drafting and putting those laws in effect. But the state really doesn't have a direct say in the amount of property taxes individual jurisdictions raise. The association's report found taxes would have been somewhat higher without twoproperty tax changes by the Legislature in 2019. One created a process where school district property taxes would decrease over time for senior citizens, whose school district taxes are capped. The second change, Craymer said, increased the school district property tax homestead exemption for homeowners from $25,000 to $40,000, saving homeowners about $180 per year. Also in 2019, the Legislature required cities, counties and most special districts to seek voter approval to set a property tax that raises revenues more than 3.5%. For junior colleges and hospital special districts, the threshold for voter approval is 8%. For school districts, it is 2.5%. State policy also affects property values, and increases in value are tied to increases in taxes. Richard Auxier,senior policy associate at the Tax Policy Center under the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, said the value of Texas homes is increasing alongside the rest of the country. While you can frame that as property taxes went up, you can flip that to home values went up, Auxier said. It's always going to be a trade-off, because people want the value of their homes to increase, but people don't want their taxes to go up. Texas Republicans have campaigned on property tax relief, too. Abbottadded property tax reliefto the Legislature's third special session agenda in 2021 thatresulted ina now-approved amendment to the Texas Constitution. Abbottsimilarly publicized his support for property tax reliefas a priority in a May 2 tweet ahead of May 7 elections. Abbott'scampaign responded to O'Rourke's adby saying Abbott reduced property taxes by $18 billion since taking office and O'Rourke increased property taxes as an El Paso City Council member. Texas voters approvedProposition 2, which raises the homestead exemption for school district property taxes from $25,000 to $40,000. They also approvedProposition 1, which corrected a 2019 oversight in tax relief that did not apply to homeowners who are disabled or 65 or older because their school tax burden is capped. O'Rourke said in an April 23 Instagram video on rising inflation in Texas that, Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion. Data presented in biennial reports and on the comptroller's website show that estimated revenue collected through property taxes increased by more than $20 billion. O'Rourke's figure was accurate. But property taxes are set locally, not by the state. Although state policies might indirectly affect property taxes, the governor's role in setting property taxes is indirect. We rate this as Mostly True. On 8 November 2016, a screenshot purportedly showing a deleted Tweet from Donald Trump's son, Eric, featuring an image of his marked ballot was widely circulated via social media: eric trump deleted his violation of new york state law, so here it is for posterity pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc  noah kulwin (@nkulw) November 8, 2016 November 8, 2016  The above-displayed screenshot is real. The tweet was posted by Eric Trump on 8 November 2016 but was deleted shortly afterwards: Although the tweet's URL currently leads to Twitter's "Sorry, that page doesn't exist" page, we managed to archive a cached version of the tweet: page archive cached  Taking a "ballot selfie" or posting a photograph showing the inside of your voting booth may or may not be illegal, depending upon what state you're voting in. Unfortunately, Eric Trump posted his ballot picture from New York, a state where "ballot selfies" are still against the law  as a federal judge had affirmed just a few days earlier: illegal New York affirmed A federal judge says he is not overturning a New York state ban against ballot selfies or the showing of a marked election ballot to others. Manhattan Judge P. Kevin Castel said in a written ruling that people who want to publicize their ballot choices can do so through "other powerful means." The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought on behalf of voters. The lawsuit contended that voters had a First Amendment right to share a photograph of their ballot with others, even through social media. Lawyers for the state and New York City argued against it. The state argued that a law more than a century old banned people from showing their marked ballot to others. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies." Under the law, which dates from the 19th century, it is a misdemeanor for voters to share the contents of completed ballots. Violators could face up to one year in prison. Three voters sued on Oct. 26 to block enforcement of the law, saying that sharing ballot selfies was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. But the judge said that because of the imminence of the election, the voters needed to show a "clear or substantial likelihood" that their lawsuit would succeed before he could issue an injunction, and that they had not done so. "The public's interest in orderly elections outweighs the plaintiffs' interest in taking and posting ballot selfies," though they remained free to express their political message through "other powerful means," Castel wrote. It should be noted that Eric Trump's ballot photograph does not include his name or his picture. While it is assumed that the tweet pictured the real ballot Trump used to cast his vote, that element has not been verified. Ohlheiser, Abby.  "Yes, Your Ballot Selfie Still Might Be Illegal. Sorry."
  Washington Post.  8 November 2016. Stempel, Jonathan.  "Judge Refuses to Block New York 'Ballot Selfie' Law."
  Reuters.  3 November 2016. Does the stock market boom under Democratic presidents? Hillary Clinton said so during a town hall in Nashua, N.H., on July 28, 2015. You know the evidence is pretty clear that under Democratic presidents, going a ways back, people do better, Clinton said,at around 5:30 in this video. And not only working people, middle class people. Even the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. We wondered: Is it true that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House? We took a closer look. Scrutinizing the stock ticker There have been a couple studies addressing this question, and they all agree: For whatever reason, going back more than a century, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. A2012 report by CMC Markets, an international financial firm, found that since 1900, the United States stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to just 5.43 percent under Republicans. Anotherstudyfrom 2012 by Adviser Perspectives newsletter, using somewhat different methodology, found that since 1900, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 8.7 percent annually under a Democratic president, compared to 5.7 percent under Republicans. AndcalculationsbyThe Economistfound that the Barclays U.S. equity index gained a cumulative 300 percent under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about zero under Republican presidents. To bring the data up to date, we checked in with Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York. He hadpreviously founda big Democratic advantage in stock market gains through 2012. From 1901 through July 31, 2015, Stovall found, the stock market gained 8.7 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to 5.3 percent under Republican presidents. The same pattern held in Stovalls data since the end of World War II  in fact, it was even more pronounced. Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2 percent under Democratic presidents and 6.3 percent under Republican presidents. And it wasnt just the stock market that chalked up better performance under Democratic presidents, according toa July 2014 paperby Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They found a performance gap between the parties that was startlingly large over a wide variety of economic metrics. The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,Blinder and Watson wrote. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. What does this mean? So, multiple studies show that Clintons claim is numerically correct. But what, if anything, can we conclude from it? Experts said its best not to go overboard in drawing conclusions about White House control and stock market performance. Here are some of the reasons why. A lot of this stems from luck and timing.Republicans are cursed by having Herbert Hoover on their presidential roster. The stock-market decline was so quick and deep under Hoover that it continues to hobble the partys stock-market performance all these decades later. Meanwhile, starting at such a low point was a huge help to his Democratic successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, if you remove Hoover from the GOP column, the average monthly return for Republicans improves significantly, from a 0.38 percent average monthly return to a 0.61 percent monthly return. The Hoover-free GOP number is within striking distance of the Democratic mark of 0.73 percent, said Lawrence J. White, a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. White doesnt argue that its fairest to remove Hoover from the GOPs calculation. Rather, he said, its a reminder that relatively small changes due at least in part to unlucky timing can have big effects on the end result. Partisan labels are only somewhat helpful.What matters is the relationship of policy to the stock market, not partisan labels, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic policy under Bill Clinton was far more market-oriented than it was under either Bush or Nixon. A good stock market is harder to define than one might think.For instance, a healthy year-over-year increase in the stock market may sound good, but if it comes with high volatility throughout the year, that can be a lot less pleasant for investors, said Tom Arnold, a professor of finance at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business. Meanwhile, down markets are buying opportunities and up markets are selling opportunities for the purpose of cashing in on profits, possibly from securities purchased in a down market, Arnold said. Better in one market is usually at the cost of another market. Market results dont align neatly with presidential terms.The stock market makes an anticipatory assessment of a president and his policies shortly after his election  or even before the election, White said. So the market's anticipation of what an incoming president will do occurs during the last few months of the incumbents presidency. He noted that this factor was even stronger prior to 1936, when the new president was inaugurated on March 4, leaving four months of stock market anticipation in the previous presidents column. A president is only one factor in determining stock market performance.Perhaps most important, experts urge caution in ascribing too much credit to a president for how the stock market performs on his watch. Often  including now, during a period of strong stock-market gains  Congress is held by the opposing party. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, which plays a crucial role in the economy by directing the nations monetary policy, operates independently once appointments are made by the president and confirmed by Congress. And a host of other factors that a president cant control, including technological advances and international economic trends, play a role as well. In their paper, Blinder and Watson focus on two factors as most important in determining economic performance. One is the presence or absence of an energy price shock -- something that, unfortunately for the GOP, hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The other factor they pointed to is what economists call total factor productivity,defined asthe portion of economic output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Think of it as the economys special sauce, or its extra bang for the buck. Although its unclear why, Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, most clearly during the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. Hillary Clintons campaign emphasized to PolitiFact that she didnt say that the president is the only factor that went into stock market results. Still, our experts agreed that while the numbers to back up her claim are clear, the meaning and significance of those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't place much weight on it, one way or the other, White said. Our ruling Clinton said that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. The numbers back her up, but its worth noting that luck, timing and several other factors in the broader economy also play a role in determining stock market performance. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Did ODNI Photoshop the Cover of a Diversity Report? One lesson that organizations should have learned by now is not to make groups appear to more diverse than they really are by digitally editing photographs since that type of manipulation is too easy to catch: digitally editing photographs https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uw-booklet-student-added/ Unfortunately, that was one lesson the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) hadn't learned by mid-2021, when that office published their annual demographic report on Hiring and Retention of Minorities, Women, and Persons with Disabilities in the United States Intelligence Community." ODNI annual demographic report The cover to that report featured a photograph of a group of smiling, well-dressed professionals, including a woman in a wheelchair and a (presumably) visually impaired man wearing sunglasses and holding the leash to a guide dog:   A press release about the report quoted the director of National Intelligence as stating the following: press release The Intelligence Community should reflect the diverse makeup of America and demonstrate that we are fostering an environment where every professional can succeed, said Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion is fundamental to our democratic values and critical to meeting the ICs mission. This takes work every single day. We are committed to doing more to address this critical issue and accelerate our progress. There's one problem, though. The image used on the ODNI report cover was a stock photograph from the Shutterstock service, titled as representing "Portrait of Multi-Cultural Office Staff Standing in Lobby." Although the Shutterstock photo may have included women and minorities among the pictured group, it but it didn't include any persons with obvious disabilities: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-multicultural-office-staff-standing-lobby-174469094 As multiple social media users pointed out, rather than finding a more representative cover graphic to utilize for the report, someone at ODNI apparently utilized an altered version of the stock photo  a version into which the figures of the woman in the wheelchair and the visually impaired man had been clumsily added via Adobe Photoshop (or some other digital editing program) to create the requisite appearance of diversity:  The ODNI had not responded to our request for comment on the altered image at publication time, but we will update this story if we hear back.