Says Hillary Clinton supported North American Free Trade Agreement), and she supported Chinas entrance into the World Trade Organization. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
At the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump repeated his months-long criticism of Hillary Clintons past support of free trade deals, a position in stark contrast to his own. (Trump says his superior negotiating skills will result in better deals.) She supported (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and she supported Chinas entrance into the World Trade Organization  another one of her husbands colossal mistakes. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is largely accurate, but its worth noting that Clinton no longer supports NAFTA or TPP, nor is it clear that the South Korean deal is a job-killer. Lets go through Clintons position on these deals one by one. NAFTA As first lady, Clintonspoke favorablyof NAFTA  the North American Free Trade Agreement  signed by President Bill Clinton. I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth, said Clinton, according to a 1996 Associated Press report. Creating a free trade zone in North America  the largest free trade zone in the world  would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization, shewrotein her 2003 memoir,Living History, which the Trump campaign cited in a press release. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. But a few years later, shechanged her position on the dealduring her first White House bid. In 2007, she called NAFTA a mistake and said it hurt a lot of American workers. Why the change of heart? According to the 2008 Clinton camp, she was always skeptical of the deal. But the first lady was not supposed to deviate from the position of the administration, Robert Shapiro, the undersecretary of commerce under Bill Clinton,toldthe Huffington Post. Chinas inclusion in the WTO While campaigning for Senate in 2000, Clinton voiced reservations about Chinas entrance into the WTO, but was supportive overall. Heres what she said at aCNN forumin April of that year, which was cited by the Trump campaign: I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO. Right now, we are trading with China. We have a huge trade deficit with China. The agreement that has been negotiated between our two countries would open their markets to us in a way that they are not yet open, and in fact, for many large manufactured products, like automobiles, we would have the first chance to really get in and compete in that marketplace. (According to news reports from 1999, then-Reform Party member Trump opposed the United States inclusion in the WTO, period.) China became a member of the WTO in December 2001, with the support of President George W. Bush. Since then, Clinton hasnt reversed her position, as far as we can tell, but hasadvocatedfor using the WTO to bring trade cases against China. (This is alsoTrumps current position.) Deal with South Korea During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton opposed a pending free trade deal with South Korea (as well as other deals with Colombia and Panama). While I value the strong relationship the United States enjoys with South Korea, I believe that this agreement is inherently unfair, shetoldthe AFL-CIO in June 2007. The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American carmakers, she said in a November 2007campaign statement. But as secretary of state, she supported the deal advocated by the administration. At an April 2011 gathering of business leaders in Seoul, Clintonsaidthe deal was profoundly in America's strategic interest and a priority for me, for President Obama and for the entire administration. (In 2008, Obama alsowas against the deal.) When the deal entered into force in March 2012, Clintontoutedit as a historic milestone that will provide a significant economic boost to both of our economies and strengthen the U.S. partnership with a key ally in a strategically important region. Does this deal kill jobs, as Trump says? The jury is still out. On one hand, the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-focused think tank, which Trump has cited, has found that the South Korean deal cost about60,000U.S. jobs. On the other, the Obama administration hasarguedthe deal actually creates jobs. Our friends at theWashington PostFact-Checker, meanwhile, looked at the the evidence andfoundboth estimates of job losses and job gains are fishy. An independentanalysisby economists at Tufts University and the University of Michigan projected a decline in manufacturing and service jobs and an increase in agriculture and food, beverage and tobacco jobs. But overall, the net impact on employment would be zero. TPP As wevedetailedquiteextensively, Clinton once hailed TPP as setting the gold standard in trade agreements during her time in the Obama administration, but she came out in opposition during her 2016 bid. Though shes always said the details needed to be hammered out, her comments about the deal were largely supportive from 2010 to 2013. Here are some of the words she used to describe TPP: exciting, innovative, ambitious, groundbreaking, cutting-edge, high quality, high standard and gold standard. In October 2015, Clinton flip-flopped and opposed it, telling PBS, I dont believe its going to meet the high bar I have set. Our ruling Trump said Clinton supported NAFTA, and she supported Chinas entrance into the World Trade Organization. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump is right that Clinton once supported NAFTA and TPP and has yet to revoke her support for Chinas inclusion in the WTO or the deal with South Korea. But there are caveats. Clinton no longer supports NAFTA or TPP, and its not entirely clear that trade with South Korea has killed jobs. Trumps statement is accurate because its carefully phrased, but it needs additional context. We rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/68c1a4d5-56ad-4a84-87b6-564b5037df5b
In February 2022, Russian propagandists went into overdrive in an attempt to justify their unprovoked attack on Ukraine. They claimed that Ukraine was run by Nazis (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide on its own people (false), and that Russia was attacking biolabs to prevent "COVID-2" (false). false false false Another line of disinformation attempted to downplay violence in Ukraine. This was largely done when people posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors," or people pretending to be in crisis there. A video of a camera crew filming people running through the street, for example, was posted to Bitchute (a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content) along with the title "How to Make a Propaganda Video?" and the hashtags #UKRAINE #RUSSIA and #PROPAGANDA. posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content   Rumble, another video platform known for hosting far-right content, posted this video under the caption "completely choreographed Fake News In Ukraine - Still Believe Mockingbird Media?" On "TheGreatAwakening," a conspiratorial website dedicated to the debunked QAnon conspiracy theory, this video was shared with the caption "Lights, Camera, Action!" and on Twitter it was shared as if it showed "crisis actors" filmed "in the middle of the 'massive and scary' Russian invasion."   This video was not filmed in the Ukraine, and it was not filmed in 2022. This video was originally posted in 2013 and shows a behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Invasion Planet Earth" (originally titled "Kaleidoscope Man"), a sci-fi adventure movie about an alien invasion. The above-displayed scene was filmed in Birmingham, England, not Ukraine. Invasion Planet Earth Kaleidoscope Man  Another version of this rumor hinged on the claim that the news media was sharing an abbreviated version of this video that only showed people running (with no hints of a camera crew) in order to exaggerate the state of affairs in Ukraine. By claiming that a miscaptioned version of this footage was being shared by the news media, social media users could claim that this was an example of "globalist propaganda."   But we have not found a single post from a genuine news outlet that presented this footage as if it were real. The "news outlet" included the above-displayed screenshot is a weeks-old Twitter account, @mightyfarooz200, that has no apparent connections to any credible news outlet. This video was not filmed in Ukraine during Russia's invasion of the country. It does not show crisis actors and it was not shared as if it were genuine footage of Russia's invasion as reported by credible media news outlets. However, this is still a good example of propaganda, just not in the way that it's being presented online. This footage was widely circulated on social media with one of two claims: First, that it showed Ukrainian "crisis actors" filming a propaganda video, and second that the news media was using miscaptioned footage to misrepresent the situation in Ukraine. Neither of these claims were true. Our search for postings of this video turned up dozens of far-right accounts sharing this video as if it showed crisis actors, and practically zero postings of people sharing this video as if it showed a genuine attack. In other words, this video was widely shared by those attempting to downplay the violence by Russians in Ukraine, not by those attempting to exaggerate it. British Council Film: Kaleidoscope Man. https://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/kaleidoscope-man. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Hinton, Alexander. Putins Claims That Ukraine Is Committing Genocide Are Baseless, but Not Unprecedented. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Putin Using False Nazi Narrative to Justify Russias Attack on Ukraine, Experts Say. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-claims-denazification-justify-russias-attack-ukraine-experts-say-rcna17537. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Ukraine Invasion: Misleading Claims Continue to Go Viral. BBC News, 28 Feb. 2022. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/60554910. On Nov. 28, 2022, the@Xx17965797N Twitter accounttweeteda video with a misleading caption that claimed the clip showed a sea of lined-up electric scooter bikes that were abandoned because of the high cost of electric vehicle (EV) battery replacement. The tweet read, "Electric green scooters that have reached end of battery life. Due to the batteries being so expensive to replace, electric scooters are abandoned because disposing of them any other way is dangerous and expensive." tweeted This was not true, despite the tens of thousands of combined retweets and likes that the tweet received.  The same video upload from @Xx17965797N was also misleadingly reshared by accounts including@PeterDClack, @JamesMelville, and @MillerForTexas. The former two tweets received thousands of engagements, despite the fact that the information pushed in the original tweet was not true. @PeterDClack @JamesMelville @MillerForTexas In cases like these where a caption is incorrect but the picture or video is real, we issue a fact-check rating of "Miscaptioned." Days before the @Xx17965797N tweet was posted, the@ElevaBrasilES account also misleadingly tweeted that the same video was shot in France. The tweet went up on Nov. 21 with an incorrect caption that read, "Green energy Cemetery of electric motorcycles in France. Now designated as a 'biohazard zone.'" (Note: This mention of France reminded us of other rumors we've debunked in the past, in particular about two photosof other car graveyards. The two pictures showed false captions that claimed the cars had been abandoned due to the high cost of battery replacement, just like the video we're looking at in this fact check.) tweeted two photos The oldest upload of the video that we could find came from TikTok user @smartsetting. The video was uploaded on Nov. 7 and by the end of the month had received nearly 5 million views.   Based on watching the video, the scooters appeared to be parked in a parking lot near a basketball court, perhaps in a university complex or public park. Several blurry Chinese characters were visible on the side of the bikes. At the end of the clip, a tall building could be seen on the right-hand side of the frame. Other than those pieces of information, we didn't have much to go on. In order to find the truth behind this video, we first used Adobe Media Encoder to export a JPEG file for each and every frame from the video. The results of this export were 440 individual images from the 14-second video. We then performed numerous reverse image searches with these picture files using Google Images and TinEye.com. These reverse image searches provided several clues as to where other users had reposted the video. However, we did not find any further details from these searches. Next, we tried several searches on Google, Twitter, and YouTube with phrases such as "electric scooter China" and "electric bike graveyard China," among other terms. This helped to find several repostsof the video. The searches alsoshowedresults for many of the sites in China that are the final resting placesfor massive stacks of bicycles dumped by bike-sharing companies with failed business models. Perhaps the most striking video we found was titled, "No Place To PlaceThe Wonders of Shared Bicycle Graveyards in China." several reposts showed results sites final resting places failed business models video At one point in our research, we stumbled upon an AFP videofrom 2021 that appeared to show the same yellow color and model of electric scooter bike. The caption for the clip said that it was captured "outside the city of Shenyang." The end of the video showed a stadium with special colors for seating zones. video model After an exhaustive search, we were able to find this same stadium by using the map tools on the Chinese website Baidu.com. Unlike Google Maps, Baidu.com has street-level views of nearby roads. However, this part of our effort wasn't very helpful. It remained unclear if this was the same location where the viral clip was shot. Baidu.com In the end, it was going back to TikTok that helped us find the origins of the video. A search on TikTok for "electric share bike China" brought us to this video from @evstevepan. The video showed the same kind of yellow electric scooter bike with a similar logo. A scan of the logo using a mobile phone camera and Google Translate revealed the company name Meituan, which is known as an "all-encompassing platform for local services." this video We then searched the internet for Meituan and electric scooters, which produced plenty of pictures on Shutterstock.com. For a moment, the two large characters on the side of the scooter didn't seem to match those from the viral video. We then horizontally flipped a still-frame from the viral video, which led us to discover that it had been mirrored, meaning that all words and numbers were backward. plenty of pictures All of these developments in our research led us to news articles that helped to show our findings were lining up. In April 2018, news broke that Meituan had purchased the company Mobike for $2.7 billion. According to the story, Mobike is "a Chinese startup that helped pioneer bike-sharing services worldwide." broke But by November of that same year, TechCrunch reported that Meituan would be "[walking] away from bike-sharing and ride-hailing," as there wasn't enough demand from customers for the supply of its bike-sharing venture: reported In April, Meituan entered the bike-sharing fray after it scooped up top player Mobike for $2.7 billion to face off Alibaba-backed Ofo. Over the past few years, Mobike and Ofo were burning through large sums of investor money in a bid to win users from subsidized rides, but both have shown signs of softening their stance recently. Mobike is downsizing its fleets to "avoid an oversupply" as the bike-sharing market falters, Meituan's chief financial officer Chen Shaohui said during the earnings call. Ofo has also scaled back by closing down many of its international operations. ... During its third quarter that ended September 30, Meituan posted a 97.2 percent jump on revenues to 19.1 billion yuan, or $2.75 billion, on the back of strong growth in food delivery transactions. The firm's investments in new initiatives  including ride-hailing and bike-sharing  took a toll as operating losses nearly tripled to 3.45 billion yuan compared to a year ago. Meituan shares plunged as much as 14 percent on Friday, the most since its spectacular listing. Just as so many electric bicycles from bike-sharing companies had piled up across China, so had electric scooters like the ones seen in the viral video. In sum, social media users falsely claimed that a video showed tons of lined-up electric scooter bikes that were abandoned in a "graveyard" due to the high cost of EV battery replacement. All evidence pointed to a simple answer: supply and demand. The number of electric scooter bikes and bicycles far outnumbered the number of people who requested to use them (or else they went missing or were stolen), which resulted in downsizing by some companies, and the closure of others.The clip appears to have been shot in China, although its precise location is unclear. far outnumbered went missing or were stolen We reached out to Meituan for comment on Nov. 29 but did not receive a response in time for publication. 25  2022 . ELDORADO, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gbI2Bo2xKCc. A Veces Hay Cosas Que Duelen y Desesperan. Lamenta, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmV5lBEYEMU. @Atomicfact. Twitter, 14 Aug. 2018, https://twitter.com/atomicfact/status/1029352130086424576. Baidu. https://map.baidu.com/. @BBC. "The Problem of China's Huge Bike Graveyards." Twitter, 20 May 2018, https://twitter.com/bbc/status/998231947359997952. @ElevaBrasilES. Twitter, 21 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/elevabrasiles/status/1594826198831570947. @evstevepan. "Share Electric Scooter in China #electricscooter #china #vlog." TikTok, 25 Sept. 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/@evstevepan/video/7147290373868506411. Freer. "Meituan Electric Shared Bikes on the Street." Shutterstock, 19 May 2020, https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/zhongshan-guangdong-chinamay-19-2020meituan-electric-1736816009. Google Images. https://images.google.com/. Google Translate. https://translate.google.com/. "Graveyard of the Bikes: Aerial Photos of China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme Show Mountains of Damaged Bikes." The Straits Times via AFP, 21 Apr. 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/graveyard-of-the-bikes-chinas-failed-share-cycle-scheme-from-above. "Graveyard of the Bikes: China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme from Above." Techxplore.com via AFP, 21 Apr. 2021, https://techxplore.com/news/2021-04-graveyard-bikes-china-share-cycle-scheme.html. @JamesMelville. Twitter, 29 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1597532727338639360. Liao, Rita. "Meituan, China's 'everything App,' Walks Away from Bike Sharing and Ride Hailing." TechCrunch, 23 Nov. 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/23/meituan-scale-back-ride-hailing-and-bike-sharing/. @mbrennanchina. Twitter, 4 Dec. 2018, https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1069940186786775042. @MillerForTexas. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/millerfortexas/status/1597346555111280640. No Place To PlaceThe Wonders of Shared Bicycle Graveyards in China. Guoyong Wu, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfLWFv3ixk. @PeterDClack. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/peterdclack/status/1597371847397761024. Russell, Jon. "Chinese Bike-Sharing Pioneer Mobike Sold to Ambitious Meituan Dianping for $2.7B." TechCrunch, 3 Apr. 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/03/chinese-bike-sharing-pioneer-mobike-sold-to-ambitious-meituan-dianping-for-2-7b/. Shared Electric Bikes Roll into Changsha in Central China. CGTN, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSUN-FSuNI. Siqi, Ji. "Taxpayers Foot the Clean-up Bill for China's Bike-Sharing Bust." South China Morning Post, 2 Oct. 2020, https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3103908/what-happens-discarded-bikes-chinas-sharing-boom-taxpayers. Sprawling Bike Graveyard from China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme. AFP News Agency, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1Qxs_KOYo. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. u/silvertomars. "A Graveyard for Electric Scooters the Batteries Have Reached the End of Their Life-Time, but Are Too Expensive to Replace and Safely Disposing or Recycling the Batteries Is Also Too Expensive." r/Wallstreetsilver via Reddit.com, 28 Nov. 2022, https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/z7i7ng/a_graveyard_for_electric_scooters_the_batteries/. @vegastarr. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/vegastarr/status/1597338236472659968. @Xx17965797N.Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/xx17965797n/status/1597310309139873792. Yan, Alice. "Chinese Bike-Share Firm Closes after 90 per Cent of Cycles Stolen." South China Morning Post, 21 June 2017, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2099293/chinese-bike-share-firm-closes-after-90-cent-cycles-stolen. Mark Twain (1835-1910), the author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer," remains one of the most celebrated American writers and humorists. He is certainly among the most quotable authors of all time, not to mention one of the most misquoted. For whatever reason, people like to attribute jokes and aphorisms to Twain that he never said or wrote. Mark Twain In early 2023 we were alerted to a meme that was circulating with a quote attributed to Twain on the subject of patriotism. It had been greeted with some skepticism online, in part because some people pointed out that the year given for the quote, 1935, was 34 years after Twain's death. When we investigated, however, we found that the quote itself is properly attributed to him, and 1935 was the date it was first published.  The passage is an excerpt from a section titled "Maxims in the Rough" from "Mark Twain's Notebook," a collection first published in 1935 by Harper & Brothers. Here is the full paragraph, plus the the three that immediately followed it, for context: Maxims in the Rough Mark Twain's Notebook In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice  and always has been. In any civic crisis of a great and dangerous sort the common herd is not privately anxious about the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is only anxious to be on the winning side. In the North, before the War, the man who opposed slavery was despised and ostracized, and insulted. By the "Patriots." Then, by and by, the "Patriots" went over to his side, and thenceforth his attitude became patriotism. There are two kinds of patriotism  monarchical patriotism and republican patriotism. In the one case the government and the kind may rightfully furnish you their notions of patriotism; in the other, neither the government nor the entire nation is privileged to dictate to any individual what the form of his patriotism shall be. The Gospel of the Monarchical Patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Out country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we have  the individual right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he by himself) believes them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about the grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.  Source: Twain, Mark. "Mark Twain's Notebook." London, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935. https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/ItalTravLit/id/22396. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer:     Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site  collecting people's private information in the process  but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: general tips 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 Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. On the Cats Roundtable, a radio show and podcast with businessman and political donor John Catsimatidis, New York City Mayor Eric Adams made a claim about the richest New Yorkers contributions to city coffers. Fifty-one percent of our taxes are paid by 2% of New Yorkers, Adams said. We must understand the role that high-income New Yorkers play in this city. And when I hear people totally attempting to say they dont play a significant role, that is just wrong, they do. Is Adams right? We reached out to his press secretary, Fabien Levy, who said Adams was talking specifically about personal income taxes. During the interview,Adams was not so precise.The mayor, however, has made that qualification when making this claim before, such as when he was running for officein 2021. This is what he said at afundraising appearance in October 2021: Yeah, were over 8 million people. But do you know 65,000 pay 51 percent of our income taxes? Levy provided previously unreleased data from the Mayors Office of Management and Budget, which showed that in 2020, the top 2.5% of city taxpayers, when ranked by income, paid 51.6% of the citys personal income tax collections. According to areportreleased in December 2022 from the citys Independent Budget Office, a publicly funded organization that provides nonpartisan information about city finances, in 2020, filers with annual gross income of $500,000 or more, representing 1.6% of all filers, paid 49.2% of the citys personal income taxes. Independent Budget Office Communications Director Elizabeth Brown confirmed the office estimated Adams claim to be true, but only as it pertains to personal income tax collections -- not all tax collections. We dont break out the groups the same exact way the mayor spoke about them, but we believe his numbers are more or less accurate, Brown said. Personal income taxes are a fraction of what the city collects in taxes. According to thecitys January 2023 financial plan, personal income and the pass-through entity tax (an optional tax for partnerships and S corporations, such as limited liability corporations) represent 22% of the citys collections. Property taxes constitute 46% of the collections, while sales and use taxes represent 13%. Lucy Dadayan, an expert in state and local finances at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said that its not surprising that a small fraction of earners pay nearly half of the citys income taxes. Thats because about 2.1% of New York citys earners take home around 43% of New York Citys income, she said. This data point is nearly exact to data provided by the city from the Office of Management and Budget. The available data doesnt show how much the top 2% of city earners pay on property, sales, or other taxes, Dadayan said. But their contributions to other tax categories are significant, said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute who frequently writes about city finances. According to the city, office buildings are 21% of the property tax levy, the citys single biggest tax, for example, and the reason the office valuations are high is because of their wealthy occupants, Gelinas said. Wealthier people also consume more in goods and services than middle-class and poorer people, and thus pay higher sales taxes, she said. Adams claimed that 51% of city taxes are paid by 2% of New Yorkers. If he had specified income taxes in his statement, we would have given a True ruling. The budget analysts who study the numbers confirm as much. The mayor was talking about personal income taxes, his spokesperson said. But someone listening to Adams interview would not necessarily have known that because Adams did not offer that qualification. Given his past similar statements in which he specified it was income taxes he was talking about, we do not see this as a case in which he was trying to mislead the audience. But because his statement on the radio show was accurate but needed clarification, we rate his statement as Mostly True. In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle started to circulate on social media along with a warning about an alleged tactic being used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy," or "1 female 1 baby," and that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme received a viral boost when it was posted to actor James Woods' Twitter account: posted   The text read:  A very close friend of mine was out today doing shopping with her child at the Bricktown Walmart. When she left the store a lady stopped her and made her aware of what was written on her back window (1f1b) im just going to assume that it stands for 1 female 1 baby. She was then informed that this is now how sex traffickers are tagging cars.. please please mothers, fathers, grandparents.. aunts & uncles. Be AWARE! Feel free to share! Wont be tagging my friend for personal reasons. The claims made in this viral social media post are unfounded. Police in Bricktown, New Jersey, have said that they are unaware of any such activity. But before we get to the police statement about this matter, let's take a look at the game of telephone that helped this rumor go viral.  The text of this post states that this happened to a "friend of mine." When we read a little further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger. Not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee  just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this post received far wider circulation. And the farther we moved away from the rumor's origins, the muddier the details got. One poster, for instance, informed people that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in this location. post poster When we try to boil down this rumor to its origins, we see that the claim is based on something someone saw on Facebook, written by a person claiming that their friend had heard from a stranger that the code "1f1b" was being used by sex traffickers to flag future targets. In other words, this rumor doesn't exactly have credible origins.  The local Patch website reported: reported Brick Township Sgt. Jim Kelly said the department had not been notified. "We have no reports for anything like this," Kelly said. He also said the department has not been alerted by state or federal authorities of any information that indicates criminals are marking vehicles "as a method for anything." It's simply another Facebook rumor without any facts, Kelly said. A new variant of this rumor popped up on social media in July 2021.    AND THIS, THIS IS WHY I CARRY! Not only do I carry but Im educated in how to defend myself if ever put in a circumstance like this!! Please be aware of your surroundings AT ALL TIMES!7/27/2021Today around 3:30pm between Prairie Grove and Hogeye, this truck had a black Tahoe stop in front of it. A man got out and began asking the female driver of this truck for directions. She rolled down her window but had her seat belt on and doors locked. As the man approached he punched her in her left eye and cut her arm. Thankfully she was carrying and grabbed her gun. He took off. She called the police and they advised her this mark 1FW on her back window is a human trafficking mark. She was marked somewhere and this man followed and when she was on a road alone, he made a move to take her. Thankfully, she is home with her family tonight. Please be aware of your surroundings. We are told they often mark mailboxes and trash cans too. This particular marking stands for one female white. Nor was this the first time that this type of baseless warning has gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we wrote about the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were laying down in front of vehicles in order to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor holding that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets.  false claim false rumor false rumor Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, writes that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths when it comes to trafficking: The Polaris Project Myth: Its always or usually a violent crime. Fact: The most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it often involves kidnapping or physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most traffickers use psychological means such as, tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor.     Polaris Project.  "Myths, Facts, and Statistics."
  Retrieved 24 August 2020. Wall, Karen.  "Rumor Of Sex Traffickers at Brick Walmart Unfounded, Police Say."
  Patch.  13 August 2020. Updated [Aug. 2, 2021]: July 2021 variant added. Sampling the local fare is a staple on the menu of any politician worth his salt.For that reason alone, John Kasich is fortunate to be governor of Ohio.Ohio is the brass buckle on the burger belt. It is Ground Beef Zero.It is Mondo Carne.Rivals stake competing claims, but Ohio can credit two brothers from Akron, Charles and Frank Menches, for inventing and naming the hamburger in 1885. Menches Brothers Restaurants still feature the original recipe.The oldest burger chain, White Castle, is headquartered in Columbus, not far from the home of Wendy's in Dublin. The founder of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee' chains came from Upper Sandusky. The Big Boy, a meal in one on a double-deck bun, was created as the first double-decker in California, but Manners' in Cleveland and Frisch's in Cincinnati gave it white sauce perfection, inspiring the Big Mac.And so on.When Kasich took his State of the State address on the road last week to Lima, he made a stop that followed the lead of other visitors and then tweeted about it: Enjoyed a quick Kewpee burger before the State of the State in Lima tonight.The Ohio Republican Party tweeted its own comment: Kewpie burgers are delicious. An Ohio institution. And they'll cost less thanks to John Kasich's tax cut.Is that true -- or  a whopper? PolitiFact Ohio dug in with relish.First, we will stipulate that Kewpee burgers are delicious and worthy of the restaurant's slogan: Hamburger pickle on top! Makes your heart go flippity flop!We agree that the diner is an Ohio institution, even though @ohiogop misspelled its name. One of the oldest burger chains in the country, Kewpee was started in Michigan (Wendys founder Dave Thomas once said that the Kewpee near his home in Michigan inspired him to go into the business) but has its headquarters in Lima. Its downtown location is on the National Register of Historic Places.Kasich's tax cut cited by @ohiogop is the sales tax plan that is part of the governor's proposed two-year budget. To help pay for a 20 percent cut in the state's income tax, the plan would cut the state sales tax rate, from 5.5 percent to 5 percent, while widening its scope to nearly all service purchases.Restaurant meals -- such as Kasich's pre-speech Kewpee burger -- are covered by the sales tax. Take-out meals are not taxed, and would not be under Kasich's proposal.In Allen County, where Lima is located, state and county taxes combine for a 6.5 percent sales tax rate, the Ohio Department of Taxation told us. Under Kasich's plan, the rate would drop to 5.8 percent.That would cut the tax on a plain Kewpee burger -- priced at $1.80 each -- from 12 cents to 10 cents, according to the tax collection schedule posted by the Department of Taxation.So what's the take-away?It is accurate to say that a delicious burger eaten at the iconic Kewpee in Lima would cost 2 cents less under Kasich's tax proposal, leaving all other factors unchanged. Someone eating two burgers a week would save enough in 10 months to buy another burger.The price of take-out burgers would remain the same, however. Thats an important clarification that gives the statement a rating of Mostly True. In October 2016 Republican candidate Donald Trump came under fire after the release of a decade-old tape capturing him making lewd comments, followed by multiple women coming forward to claim that Trump had groped them.  Shortly afterwards, an image containing allegations about incidents of Trump's having sexually abused women circulated via social media: image   The first claim held that in 1989 Donald Trump's first ex-wife, Ivana, swore under oath in a deposition that he had violently raped her and that somehow that information wasn't brought to light during the comprehensive mudslinging that engulfed the extremely heated 2016 election. But a simple online search shows quite clearly that numerous articles published from the summer of 2015 onwards made frequent reference to Ivana Trump's purported statement:     The allegation largely stemmed from a 1993 book about Trump titled Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump by Harry Hurt III, as detailed by the New Yorker: detailed The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trumps divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurts account, Trump was furious that a scalp reduction operation hed undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wifes hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, with menacing casualness, Does it hurt? Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivanas deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends. Hurt held on to his copy of Ivanas sealed deposition for years. It was sworn testimony, he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, I threw it all out. He went on, The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this. Before Hurts book came out, Trumps lawyers pressured the publisher, W. W. Norton, to paste a clarifying statement from Ivana into the flyleaf of every copy. In it, she confirmed that she had said in a deposition that her husband had raped her, but added that she did not want those words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. She also said, As a woman, I felt violated. Hurt said that he considers the note a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash. When the rape story resurfaced [in 2015], Ivana issued a statement saying that it was without merit. She and Donald have raised three kids together. Theyre picking their bedrooms in the White House, Hurt said. But shes not saying its untrue, or that she didnt swear to it under oath.  As described, the book was appended with a statement from Ivana Trump disavowing that she intended to use the word "rape" in its commonly understood manner (i.e., forcible sex without consent): statement During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest. Ivana's statement, according to a Notice to the Reader in the book, does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book. The second allegation in the image was less well known and likely new to many social media users, holding that Trump Model Management (New York City modeling agency) was "caught trafficking young girls and hiding them in basements"  something that likely would have been quite newsworthy, given that human trafficking is an extremely serious crime. This claim originated with a 30 August 2016 Mother Jones article that notably had nothing to do with any allegations that Donald Trump or his modeling agency had engaged in human trafficking. article Instead, the Mother Jones article presented a case that Trump's anti-immigration position was hypocritical due to Trump Model Management's purported illegal employment of non-American models. Many of the article's details involved uncompensated work, a grayer legal area and a circumstance not uncommon among hopefuls trying to get a break in the highly competitive field of modeling. The article included comment from Canadian former model Rachel Blais and two unnamed women who claimed they worked for Trump Model Management around the mid-2000s and experienced illegal and/or unethical business practices. Although the details of the article were not flattering to Trump or his agency if accurate, asserting that the article accused Trump or his agents of "trafficking young women and hiding them in basements" is a gross exaggeration. The word "basement" appeared a single time in the article and was not mentioned as a place young female models were held against their will but simply as an example of cramped and pricey "model's quarters" (of a type not exclusive to Trump's modeling agency). The image reproduced above elided the article's description of the unpleasant living arrangements as an unfortunate but not uncommon aspect of the industry that is too often foisted upon aspiring models by agencies: [Along with one named woman, t]wo other former Trump models  who requested anonymity to speak freely about their experiences, and who we are giving the pseudonyms Anna and Kate  said the agency never obtained work visas on their behalf, even as they performed modeling assignments in the United States ... Each of the three former Trump models said she arrived in New York with dreams of making it big in one of the world's most competitive fashion markets. But without work visas, they lived in constant fear of getting caught ... According to three immigration lawyers consulted by Mother Jones, even unpaid employment is against the law for foreign nationals who do not have a work visa. "If the US company is benefiting from that person, that's work," explained Anastasia Tonello, global head of the US immigration team at Laura Devine Attorneys in New York. These rules for immigrants are in place to "protect them from being exploited," she said. "That US company shouldn't be making money off you." Two of the former Trump models said Trump's agency encouraged them to deceive customs officials about why they were visiting the United States and told them to lie on customs forms about where they intended to live. Anna said she received a specific instruction from a Trump agency representative: "If they ask you any questions, you're just here for meetings." Fashion industry sources say that skirting immigration law in the manner that the three former Trump models described was once commonplace in the modeling world ... Kate, who worked for Trump Model Management in 2004, marveled at how her former boss has recently branded himself as an anti-illegal-immigration crusader on the campaign trail. "He doesn't want to let anyone into the US anymore," she said. "Meanwhile, behind everyone's back, he's bringing in all of these girls from all over the world and they're working illegally." Models' apartments, as they're known in the industry, are dormitory-style quarters where agencies pack their talent into bunks, in some cases charging the models sky-high rent and pocketing a profit. According to the three former models, Trump Model Management housed its models in a two-floor, three-bedroom apartment in the East Village, near Tompkins Square Park. Mother Jones is withholding the address of the building, which is known in the neighborhood for its model tenants, to protect the privacy of the current residents. When Blais lived in the apartment, she recalled, a Trump agency representative who served as a chaperone had a bedroom to herself on the ground floor of the building. A narrow flight of stairs led down to the basement, where the models lived in two small bedrooms that were crammed with bunk beds  two in one room, three in the other. An additional mattress was located in a common area near the stairs. At times, the apartment could be occupied by 11 or more people. The third and final claim in the meme was perhaps the most widely-reported of all the three things that no one was supposedly talking about. It pertained to a twice-filed civil (not criminal) lawsuit against Donald Trump brought by a woman using the alias "Katie Johnson" who claimed that Trump "sexually and physically" abused her at parties hosted by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when she was 13 years old and then threatened her to ensure her silence: abused I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending. The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old. Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted, Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed. As our article on the lawsuit notes, "Katie Johnson" has not been identified or interviewed, and she has not provided any information or evidence outside of her court filing.  Donald Trump hasn't been afforded any opportunity to confront his accuser or the evidence against him in court, and the case may never get that far.    article The original poster of the image stated that after "the 2005 video of Donald Trump was released" she wished just to "add fuel to the fire on how disgusting he is" by highlighting things the public allegedly had ignored about the candidate's history. But two of the three claims about Trump that the public or the news media "are not going to talk about" have in fact received widespread media attention, and the third was contorted to the point of being unrecognizable when compared to the source material from which it was derived. stated Biddle, Sam.  "The Time Donald Trump's Ex-Wife Accused Him of Brutally Raping Her."
  Gawker.   30 July 2015. Ericksen, Brittany and Ilse Knecht.  "Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Assault: A State-by-State Comparison."
  The National Center for Victims of Crime.  21 August 2013. Osborne, Samuel.  "Donald Trump's Ex-Wife's Claim He 'Raped' Her Resurfaces in New Documentary."
  The Independent.  27 January 2016. West, James.  "Former Models for Donald Trump's Agency Say They Violated Immigration Rules and Worked Illegally."
  Mother Jones.  30 August 2016. Mayer, Jane.  "Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women."
  The New Yorker.  24 October 2016. In the summer of 2020, amid a new wave of nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality, readers inquired about the accuracy of online articles and social media posts that claimed a convicted terrorist sat on the board of directors of a left-leaning organization that provides fundraising and administration services for the Black Lives Matter movement. On July 8, 2020, Twitter user @asdomke posted a widely-shared tweet that read:  "This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc."   In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly.  article Daily Caller Western Journal Bill O'Reilly On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show.  segment Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that: report Some conservatives have begun speculating the unrest in American cities -- even as late as Monday night in Washington, DC as protestors unsuccessfully worked to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson and set up an autonomous zone across the street from the White House -- may in part be an attempt to affect the upcoming presidential election, with the chaos and violence intended to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to win a second term. Lending credence to this idea is the fact that at least one board member of the group fiscally sponsoring the most organized part of the Black Lives Matter movement, who have been involved in most of the activity surrounding the current unrest -- tried the same thing almost 40 years ago during Ronald Reagans reelection campaign. And it landed her in federal prison for 16 years. If there were any question whether Black Lives Matter has ideological ties to the Communist terrorists of the 1960s, the story of Susan Rosenberg should put that issue to bed... Rosenberg, who started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s -- including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun. She currently serves as human and prisoner rights advocate and a vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities: outlines "In 2016, BLM Global Network approached Thousand Currents to create a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization, provides the legal and administrative framework to enable BLM to fulfill its mission. Fiscal sponsorship is a common structure utilized by nonprofit organizations. Oftentimes, nonprofit initiatives seek fiscal sponsorship to be able to have the fiscal sponsor handle administrative operations while the organization focuses on its programs and builds up its own organizational infrastructure. In this capacity, we provide administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance." Descriptions of Thousand Currents as an organization which "handles fundraising" for Black Lives Matter were therefore accurate. As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site. describing According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response. 2015 2016 2017 Rosenberg's prominent position within Thousand Currents is clear, as are that organization's close links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (and thereby the broader Black Lives Matter movement). However, the question of whether she should be described as a "terrorist" or "convicted terrorist" is much more complicated. Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker. said Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." charges In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison. sentence commuted According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents: incidents The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars. killed accused After Rosenberg's arrest in New Jersey in 1984, and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment on the weapons and explosives possession charges, prosecutors dropped the conspiracy and racketeering charges against her, and she was never tried or convicted in relation to the 1981 Brink's robbery, the 1979 Shakur prison escape, or other armed robberies. The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary. told In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI's office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents. dropped During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense." interview In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application: recounted "I outlined my criminal acts and what I felt about them then and now. I talked about the political ethos of the 1960s and how it had led me and my associates into thinking our activities were acceptable. I detailed how sorry I felt now, how I accepted responsibility for my past actions, and how I would never commit any crimes again. I tried to put my life within the context of the historical period when many Americans thought they could change the world and end war and racism and poverty. I tried to distinguish between my core values and my embrace of the use of political violence. I stated that I now rejected the use of violence. I meant all that I said." There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped. not guilty denied The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows: defines "... Activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ..." However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries. added In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such does not exist In the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..." accused Examining the 1980s bombings retrospectively, one might very well be justified as describing them as a campaign of domestic terrorism, even if prosecutors were not in a position to hang that label on them at the time. However, the charges against Rosenberg were dropped anyway, and she was never convicted in relation to the bombing campaign. In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added. wrote Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it." indicated One could reasonably argue that Rosenberg's actions in the explosives possession case served her and her comrades' overarching mission of militant opposition to U.S. government policy and broader power structures and were in keeping with the group's (if not Rosenberg's) proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism. Crane, Missy. "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC."
 WayneDupree.com. 28 June 2020. Kerr, Andrew. "A Convicted Terrorist Sits on Board of Charity Handling Black Lives Matter Fundraising."
 The Daily Caller. 27 June 2020. O'Reilly, Bill. "Does Karl Marx Matter?"
 BillOReilly.com. 5 July 2020. Walter, Scott. "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group."
 Capital Research Center. 24 June 2020. Raab, Selwyn. "Radical Fugitive in Brink's Robbery Arrested."
 The New York Times. 1 December 1984. The Associated Press/The Philadelphia Daily News. "2 Revolutionaries Get 58 Years Each in N.J."
 20 May 1985. Barbanel, Josh. "4 Indicted by U.S. in Escape of Joanne Chesimard in '79."
 The New York Times. 19 November 1982. Barbanel, Josh. "3 Killed in Armored Car Holdup."
 The New York Times. 21 October 1981. Gross, Jane. "Brink's Suspect Held Without Bail After She Refuses to Enter a Plea."
 The New York Times. 14 May 1985. Lipton, Eric. "Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist."
 The New York Times. 22 January 2001. The Associated Press/The New York Times. "3 Radicals Agree to Please Guilty in Bombing Case."
 6 September 1990. Rosenberg, Susan. "An American Radical..."
 Citadel Press. 2011. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 -- Definitions."
 Accessed 14 July 2020. McCord, Mary B. "It's Time for Congress to Make Domestic Terrorism a Federal Crime."
 Lawfare. 5 December 2018. Shenon, Philip. "U.S. Charges 7 in the Bombing at U.S. Capitol."
 The New York Times. 12 May 1988.