Was JFK Jr. a U.S. Senate Frontrunner Before His 'Suspicious' Plane Crash?
John F. Kennedy Jr. was a popular public figure from his childhood until he died in a plane crash at the age of 38 in 1999. While there is never a shortage of conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedys, or for that matter, the Clintons, an unfounded rumor circulating in political circles during the 2016 presidential election claimed that John-John was on the cusp of a successful U.S. Senate bid until Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the ring  with the insinuation that Kennedy was killed to clear the way for her candidacy:  There is no evidence that Kennedy had definitively decided to stage a U.S. Senate run in 1999 in the face of Hillary Clinton's similar interest in the New York seat.  Days after Kennedy's 16 July 1999 death, the New York Daily News ran a story quoting two unnamed friends of Kennedy's who stated that Kennedy had mulled over running for the seat about to be vacated by retiring Senator Daniel Moynihan but had already dropped the idea when Hillary Clinton also expressed interest in it: story Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secrets in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan in 2000, friends confirmed. The idea became moot once First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled her interest in running, but the two friends said they expected the son of the slain President eventually would have jumped into politics as a candidate.  The friend who expected Kennedy to seek office in the "foreseeable future" also told of speaking with Kennedy earlier this year about the Moynihan seat. "I asked him was he casually thinking about it, or was he serious. He sort of said, 'I'm not sure. Let me think about it. But the second friend called Kennedy's interest "pretty serious," adding: "I think he was intrigued by the idea ... Would he have decided in the end to go for it? I don't know. But he was clearly thinking about it. He talked to a few people about it. Then the Hillary thing ended it pretty quickly. Clinton won the Senate election on 7 November 2000, beating Republican Rick Lazio more than a year after Kennedy Jr. was killed along with his wife, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, 33, and his sister-in-law, Lauren G. Bessette, 34, in the crash of the single-engine plane he was flying to Martha's Vineyard. won The implication that the Clintons had somehow engineered the death of Kennedy Jr. to prevent him from challenging her in her first bid for elective office is contradicted by the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) report on the accident, which assigned the probable cause to pilot error: report The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report, is: The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night. There was nothing suspicious about the circumstances of the crash. Kennedy was an inexperienced pilot, and he chose to take his plane up despite questionable weather that caused haze to obscure the view of the horizon. The New York Times reported in 2000 that one of his instructors had offered to accompany him on the flight, but he declined. Kennedy only had about 72 flying hours logged without an instructor at the time of the accident: reported Weather reports on the night of the crash  July 16, 1999  cited haze or mist and visibility as low as four miles. Pilots who flew over the Cape Cod-Martha's Vineyard area that night reported serious haze; one told investigators he had flown over Martha's Vineyard and thought there was a power failure on the island, because he could not see any lights. It's not inconceivable that the Kennedy family at one time eyed the seat being vacated by Moynihan. JFK Jr.'s death seemed to put a final nail in the coffin of the Kennedy myth known as "Camelot" and the family's political star power, but a 25 July 1999 Washington Post article on the family's future political prospects suggested that his cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who did not "conveniently" die), had been approached about entering the New York senatorial race: article But there are suggestions  among liberal Democrats it is a fervent desire  that [Joseph P. Kennedy II's] brother Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 45, might become a candidate. The environmental lawyer from the Hudson River Valley has some of the electricity of his martyred father, and has said in the past that he could be interested in being governor of New York. According to one Kennedy insider, leading Democrats unsuccessfully approached RFK Jr. to run for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. John Kennedy Jr. had won the nation's heart when at two years old he was seen on camera saluting his father's coffin during the nationally televised funeral procession after President Kennedy's November 1963 assassination. Nicknamed John-John, he grew up handsome and charismatic and was thus seen as a potential heir to the family's glory days of political influence and celebrity. While his death was untimely and no doubt a tragedy, it was ruled an accident. And though Kennedy may have been personally popular and polled well, it is misleading to describe him as a "frontrunner" in a Senate race in which he was never actually a candidate.
Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people -- six of whom were Asian women -- at three Atlanta-area spas. The investigation into the mass shooting remained ongoing, as of this report. allegedly shot and killed investigation As word of the tragedy spread online, however, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S, or pervasive violence against women. surge of attacks Among such posters was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus as a reason for growing hate crimes against Asian Americans, and tweeted: Vox tweeted "[I] don't think it's a coincidence that Trump spent the better part of a year using a virus as a slur against Chinese people while hate crimes against Asian Americans spiked by 150 percent." Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" -- going against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions of the world to eliminate stigmatization -- and 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. repeated insistence guidelines 2020 hate crime statistics About 20 minutes later, Rupar added:   The underlying claim was true  as authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News. a manhunt to catch the suspect But let this be clear: No evidence explicitly connected the former president's use of the term on national television with the tragedy unfolding simultaneously in Georgia. Furthermore, it was unclear whether he was even aware of the mass shooting when he said "China virus" while talking about unrelated matters -- specifically, his presidential administration's approach to the American economy. The interviewer did not ask him about the Atlanta-are shooting. Here's what happened: Between roughly 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. EDT, according to The Associated Press, the victims' bodies were reported inside massage parlors, and authorities arrested the suspected gunman -- Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, Georgia -- as he was driving on the interstate. Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below. Maria Bartiromo Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said: immigration COVID-19 [The economy] was recovering under my administration -- twice. We got it to a level that the world has never seen before. We were the envy of the world and then when we got hit by the, as I call it, 'the China virus' -- COVID -- it obviously went down along with every other economy. And then we were the first to get it back up. You can watch the segment here: Many a baseball fan in recent years has discovered a newspaper account relating an amazing first-person account of a game that took place in 1893: discovered   According to former minor league pitcher William "Wild Bill" Setley, a teammate of his who broke the last bat on the field had to step up to the plate in an extra-inning game wielding an axe, and his swing cut the pitched ball in two, sending half of it over the outfield fence while the other half popped up harmlessly on the infield. After some dispute with the umpire, the batter was awarded half a run, and his team was declared the winner by a score of 2 1/2 to 2: William "Wild Bill" Setley [Pitcher Mike] Kilroy broke the last bat on the field when he fouled the first pitch. All the others having been broken previously, he walked over to a nearby woodpile, which fed the clubhouse furnace, and picked up an axe. Pottsville wanted to call the game, but Kilroy, waving the axe, insisted on his licks. He swung at the next pitch and cut the ball in half, one-half going over the fence and the other half making a pop-fly to first base. Kilroy did the bases, driving in a run, while Pottsville was rejoicing at the ump's decision -- 'out.' But Mike had other ideas. As soon as he crossed home plate he took his argument to the umpire and on the grounds that half the ball went out of the park, he was awarded half a run. While many readers have enjoyed the anecdote for the tall tale it is, without regard for its literal veracity, many others have wanted to know if the story is actually true as told by Setley. In that regard, the first thing to note is that Setley's account as excerpted above was given and published in 1937, some 44 years after the fact. Across the span of several decades, memories blur and fade, and potentially corroborating witnesses disappear and die off. And we also note that as far back as 1900, long before this particular version of Setley's "half a baseball" was publicized, he was already well known as "a wag" and "a great story teller": published  The Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) helped us fill in some of the blanks by providing additional information: This wild story has been making the rounds in our circles, as well. But as far as we can tell, it appears to be false. At best, Setley's version of the story combines elements from one well-known urban legend with a real-life 1894 Allentown game in which Mike Kilroy did hit a dramatic game-ending single in the 11th inning. See below for details: 1. "Hit a ball so hard it was cut in half" This story has been told about a number of players, typically to illustrate a popular player's home run hitting prowess. But there is no evidence it has ever happened in professional baseball, with an axe or otherwise. Of course this is also a variant of the "knocked the cover off the ball" story, which has happened many, many times (see Roy Hobbs in The Natural and, more recently in real life, Martin Maldonado of the Milwaukee Brewers in 2014.) Knocking the cover off the ball was a somewhat common occurrence in the late 19th century, when baseball manufacturing standards were haphazard and inconsistent. Roy Hobbs in The Natural Martin Maldonado Some version of the "cut a ball in half" story was told about Mike "King" Kelly, the biggest superstar of his era, on the Ripley's Believe It Or Not radio show in the 1930s, possibly around the same time as Setley told his version. (More on Kelly below.) And here's another example in SABR's biography of Perry Werden, a celebrated minor-league slugger for the Minneapolis Millers in the 1890s: Mike "King" Kelly another example SABR's biography of Perry Werden Perry Werden: One time I hit the ball so hard that it broke in two. Half of the ball struck a Hit Me for a Free Pair of Shoes sign on the left-field fence; the other half was retrieved by the left fielder and thrown in to the catcher. As I steamed home, the catcher tagged me with half a ball. The umpire called me out, but I successfully argued that our team deserved half a run. It was a close game and we won by the score of 2 to 2. Reporter: Thats an amazing story, Perry. Did you get a free pair of shoes? Werden: No, the store owner said I was entitled to only one shoe. 2. Mike Kilroy's game-winning hit for Allentown in the 11th inning This portion of the story is true. Mike Kilroy and Wild Bill Setley were teammates for a minor-league team in Allentown of the Pennsylvania State League, but in 1894, not 1893. The team was managed by none other than Mike "King" Kelly, who was in the final year of his Hall of Fame career at age 36 and who died at the end of the season. (Baseball Reference lists the Allentown team with the nickname "Kelly's Killers," but like so many early baseball team names, this name does not seem to have been used at the time and was only applied years later. They were generally just called Allentown.) a minor-league team so many early baseball team names On August 15, 1894, Mike Kilroy did have a dramatic game-winning hit for Allentown that fits the basic description of Setley's story. Here is a detailed recap from the Shenandoah Evening Herald. a detailed recap from the Shenandoah Evening Herald In the game against Shenandoah (not Pottsville), Kilroy pitched all 11 innings for the visitors from Allentown. In the bottom of the 11th inning  by the rules at the time, the home team could still choose whether to bat first or last  Bill Sweeney hit a double for Allentown and scored the winning run on Kilroy's dramatic single to win it, 7-6, in front of a crowd of 2,000 people.This memorable finish was the final game of the Pennsylvania State League season for the Allentown team, so it makes sense that Wild Bill Setley would have remembered Kilroy's big hit years later. The very next day, it was reported that the entire Allentown team had jumped to the Eastern League to replace a team in Binghamton (NY) that folded due to financial troubles. This kind of move was not unusual during the 19th century  players, teams, and entire leagues could disappear at a moment's notice, if a new contract could be negotiated or if the team's funds dried up  and that was even more true during a period of economic despair like America faced in 1893-94 it was reported jumped to the Eastern League This material from SABR confirms that although he got some details wrong (such as the year, score, and opposing team), Setley's account did conform to the records of an 1894 game between Shenandoah and Allentown that was won in the 11th inning on a dramatic hit by Allentown pitcher Mike Kilroy. However, two other key points emerge from SABR's information: 1) Contemporaneous and detailed reporting of the game in question made absolutely no mention of Kilroy's breaking the last available bat, using an axe in its place, cutting the ball in two with his swing, knocking half a ball over the fence, or being awarded half a run. (Kilory simply made a "good safe hit" that drove in a run, according to reporting of the day.) 2) The very same "cut a ball in half" story was told by and about other players as well, right down to the detail of the game-winning score being 2 1/2 to 2. Notably, the 1894 game Setley referred to ended with a final score of 7-6, so clearly he dredged up the "2 1/2 to 2" detail from somewhere other than his own experience and memory. With that data in mind, we think we can safely put this one down as a tall tale that belongs in the "too good to be true" category (otherwise known as "False"). [Shenandoah] Evening Herald.  "Beaten in the Eleventh."
  16 August 1894  (p. 1). Vicksburg Evening Post.  "Perry Werden's Yarn."
  4 April 1907  (p. 7). The [Mount Carmel, PA] Daily News.  "Bill Setley's Career."
  22 January 1900  (p. 1). INS.  "Old Timer Recalls Game Won by Score of 2-2."
  The [Madison] Capital Times.  5 August 1937  (Sports; p. 1). Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to U.S. President Donald Trump, became the focus of renewed scrutiny in February 2019 when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations relating to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president. sentenced Cohen also admitted he previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year -- by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. misled Following Cohen's dramatic 27 February testimony, some observers, including Trump himself, attempted to portray Cohen as an agent of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was dishonestly smearing Trump on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee whom Trump defeated in 2016. The president highlighted the links between Clinton and Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, even suggesting that the former secretary of state was paying Cohen to provide damning testimony against Trump: Michael Cohens book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clintons lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019 March 1, 2019   We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale law school with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, such as is shown in this July 2016 Fox News panel discussion: attended 2008  Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons. conspiracy theories The meme included a photograph of Hillary Clinton standing alongside two men identified as "Michael Cohen" and "Clinton Foundation Chairman" along with text proclaiming "Michael Cohen used to be Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer and was a member of the Clinton Foundation":   The man identified as Cohen in the meme is indeed Cohen. The man identified as "Clinton Foundation Chairman" is in fact Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic former U.S. representative from Rhode Island and son of the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has never acted as chairman of the Clinton Foundation. The underlying photograph is authentic. Cohen himself tweeted it in June 2014, writing "Being received by two great Americans ... Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound": #tbt being received by two great Americans...Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW #tbt pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 26, 2014 June 26, 2014   The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that It was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy. Washington Post Although they once attended the same campaign fundraiser, we could find no evidence to corroborate the claim that Cohen ever acted as Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, despite our searching federal and New York state court records as well as news archives that extend back decades. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen was publicly hostile towards Clinton, on one occasion tweeting out a meme that included the false claim she had "murdered an ambassador": NBC/WSJ poll has @realDonaldTrump beating #CrookedHillary on #Honesty & #NationalSecurity. This picture says it all! pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV @realDonaldTrump #CrookedHillary #Honesty #NationalSecurity pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 28, 2016 June 28, 2016  On another occasion, Cohen tweeted at Clinton to say "When you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free":   Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations. deleted The Clinton Foundation does not have a membership structure, so it is unclear what the precise meaning is of the claim that Cohen was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, but we also found no evidence that he has ever had any formal or informal association with that organization. We contacted representatives for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Michael Cohen in order to definitively clarify the veracity of the February 2019 meme, but unfortunately none of them responded in time for publication. For that reason, we issue a rating of "Unproven." Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Judge Gives Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen 3 Years in Prison."
  Associated Press.  12 December 2018. Tucker, Eric et al.  "Trump's Ex-Lawyer Admits Lies About Russian Real Estate Deal."
  Associated Press.  30 November 2018. Schwartzman, Paul.  "Michael Cohen's Secret Agenda."
  The Washington Post.  9 February 2019. Palma, Bethania.  "Did Michael Cohen Tweet at Hillary Clinton That Room and Board Will Be Free When She Goes to Prison?"
  Snopes.com.  22 August 2018. 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 August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians.  shared widely The post, which typically began "For all the caring parents out there" and often warned "THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!" consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough)Parent: Right so where is my child?HT [Head teacher]: I'm sorry I can't disclose that informationP [Parent]: Is my child ok?HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 daysP: No I'm coming to get my child nowHT: I'm sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises.P: is this a joke? that is my childHT: I'm sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms.P: So when will I see my child nextHT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!!   Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19.  shared A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context. did not false The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent.  database As a result, the "COVID Act" Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post's claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: federal court precedents wrote "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference [...]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency." Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness  like COVID-19  is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere. elsewhere Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults. involuntarily terminate However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional. strict scrutiny Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny: professor Such laws would restrict the fundamental right of parents to raise their children [...]. To infringe such a right, the government would have to satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Typically, this means if there are less restrictive alternatives available, the government must first use those. Fighting Covid would clearly be a compelling state interest, but this doesn't seem narrowly tailored. Quarantining at home with parents seems just as safe as quarantining in some government-run facility. So I suspect a court would quickly declare any such law unconstitutional. Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that: director The U.S. Constitution protects parents from having children removed from parental custody without a showing that the parent is either unfit or poses an imminent danger to the child. The scenario you describe [the conversation presented in the viral Facebook post] is not consistent with any laws, either state or federal, of which I am aware. In the case of a parent suspected of extreme child abuse or endangerment, the authorities might prevent that parent from taking the child home from school, until an investigation and court hearing could establish the facts. In a medical emergency, if a child's quarantine or hospitalization were deemed necessary, the parent would be involved in any decisions and would have decision-making authority over where and how the child was to be quarantined. Rahman, Grace.  "Can Children Be Detained Without Their Parents' Consent If the Authorities Think They Have Coronavirus?"
 Full Fact. 13 August 2020. Goldhamer, Marisha. "Canadian Children With COVID-19 Symptoms Can Quarantine With a Parent or Guardian."
  Agence France-Presse. 14 August 2020. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Kirkpatrick vs. County of Washoe et al. -- Opinion."
  9 December 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Wallis vs. Spencer -- Opinion."
  14 September 1999. U.S. Supreme Court. "Santosky vs. Kramer -- Opinion."
  24 March 1982. Mac Guill, Dan. "Could People Be Fined for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine in US?"
  Snopes.com. 11 August 2020. U.S. Children's Bureau. "Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights."
  December 2016. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On July 16, 2020, as the U.S. recorded its single highest number of COVID-19 cases since the coronavirus health crisis began, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke at an event held on the South Lawn of the White House, ostensibly on the subject of "Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." During his talk, according to a meme, Trump allegedly tackled the subject of energy-efficiency standards which have supposedly resulted in home appliances that do not function properly due to requirements aimed at conserving the amount of water and power they consume:  This was an accurate reproduction of a portion of Trump's talk, according to a White House transcript of the event: transcript Were bringing back consumer choice in home appliances so that you can buy washers and dryers, showerheads and faucets. So showerheads  you take a shower, the water doesnt come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesnt come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair  I dont know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect. Dishwashers  you didnt have any water, so you  the people that do the dishes  you press it, and it goes again, and you do it again and again. So you might as well give them the water because youll end up using less water. So we made it so dishwashers now have a lot more water. And in many places  in most places of the country, water is not a problem. They dont know what to do with it. Its called rain. They dont have a problem. This was far from the first time the president had riffed on poorly functioning appliances. In December 2019, as Trump spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House amidst an impeachment inquiry, he digressed into railing about toilets and other bathroom fixtures that allegedly frustrate their users due to the use of low-flow technology. CNN reported: digressed railing about toilets The President claimed Americans are flushing their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once" and argued that they are having difficulty with washing their hands in what appeared to be a tangent about low-flow sinks and toilets. "We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on -- and in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water," the President said during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. "You turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out," the President continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips. "People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once." It wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, but it appeared to have to do with bathroom fixtures with low-flow appliances. He said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking into the issue on his suggestion. "They end up using more water. So (the) EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion," Trump said, though he did not give details on what suggestions, if any, he made. NPR quoted the Pacific Institute, a non-profit research institute with a focus on global and regional freshwater issues, as asserting that Trump's statements did not comport with reality: quoted asserting Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute in Oakland considers this all to be Trumpian nostalgia for a time when showers were strong, toilets used 4 gallons a flush and lightbulbs burned your hands when you touched them. Gleick said these newer household items are part of an "efficiency revolution," doing the same tasks with less and halting the upward trajectory of water and energy consumption in America. And, yes, a dishwasher cycle takes longer, and incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy upfront. But in the long run, "They're much more expensive, because they use a huge amount of energy, which we pay for over time and they burn out 20 times faster," Gleick said. Based on the way Trump talks about efficient lightbulbs, it seems his complaint is with compact fluorescent bulbs, which were the only low-energy bulbs widely available 10 years ago. But today, store shelves are full of LED bulbs with warmer-looking light and even longer life spans. Gleick suspects Trump's toilet complaints are outdated as well, because low-flow toilet technology has come a long way in recent years. "Some people got bad toilets, but that was 15 and 20 years ago," Gleick said. "And now the new toilets not only use a tiny fraction of the water the old toilets used to use, but the truth is they flush better  and if you have a bad toilet that doesn't flush, well, that's because you have a bad toilet." A video of the portion of the speech reproduced in the above meme can be viewed here:  Picheta, Rob et al.  "Trump Claims Americans Have to Flush the Toilet '10 Times, 15 Times, As Opposed to Once.'"
  CNN.  7 December 2019. Keith, Tamara.  "Trump vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers and Lightbulbs)."
  NPR.  27 December 2019. WhiteHouse.gov.  "Remarks by President Trump on Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans."
  16 July 2020. Claim:   The Seattle Seahawks are not selling tickets to the NFC Championship Game to California residents.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Just read an article saying that Fearing 49er Fans, The Seahawks have banned NFC Championship Ticket Sales for Californians. Is this true, I don't see how it can be?  I want to know if it is true that the Seattle Seahawks website page is closed to residents in California and Carolina from buying tickets to the January 19th 2014 playoff game to the Super Bowl. It is only reported on a California news page. Is it true??? Origins:  When the NFL's Seattle Seahawks take the field on 19 January 2014 for the NFC Championship Game in the hopes of securing a berth in this year's Super Bowl, there likely will be a good many fans from California in the stands at Seattle's CenturyLink Field, because the Seahawks' opponents that day will be the San Francisco 49ers.  Possibly there will be far fewer fans from the Bay Area in the stands than would like to be there, though, because the Seahawks announced  announced on their web site on 11 January 2014 that tickets for the game would be available only to buyers in a specified geographic area  and that area does not include any part of California. According to the notice posted on the Seahawks' official web site, tickets for the NFC Championship Game can be purchased only by buyers with credit card billing addresses in the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.  So a Canadian football fan from Edmonton, Alberta, has a shot a scoring some tickets to next Sunday's game (even though there are no NFL franchises anywhere in Canada), but not fans from Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego (all of which are home to NFL teams), or Los Angeles (the second-largest city in the U.S.).   The Seahawks offered no explanation for this restriction on their web site, but theories for the reasons behind it have ranged from its being a (likely ineffective) attempt to cut down on ticket scalping to a (mean-spirited) move to protect the Seahawks' home-field advantage by making it more difficult for 49ers fans to pack the stands.  As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, "Niner fans are known for traveling. This season, several road stadiums were packed with 49ers fans, and 49ers' play-by-play voice Ted Robinson said there were droves of 49ers fans in Charlotte for [last] Sunday's 23-10 road win over the Panthers." Somewhere in between is the notion that the team simply wants to try to ensure that their allotment of tickets for the championship game ends up, as much as possible, in the hands of Seahawks fans as a reward for their support throughout the season, rather than being bought up by others who simply want to attend a championship game (regardless of who's playing in it) or re-sell the tickets for profit.   The Denver Broncos have similarly restricted sales of tickets to the AFC Championship Game to residents of the Rocky Mountain region (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota and Western Kansas), an area that does not include the home of their opponents for that game, the Boston-based New England Patriots (but Denver and Boston are much father apart than Seattle and San Francisco are). restricted Boosters of the 49ers and other California football fans can still acquire tickets to the game through the secondary market (i.e., ticket resellers), but it will cost them.  According to Forbes, the NFC Championship Game will be the most expensive NFL game this season, with the cheapest ticket on the secondary market going for just under $400, and tickets selling for an average price of $740 each.  Last updated:  12 January 2014    Lynch, Kevin.  "Seahawks Block NFC Title Game Ticket Sales to California."   San Francisco Chronicle.  12 January 2014. In May 2021, numerous media outlets reported that U.S. President Joe Bidens administration would be waiving sanctions on vessels, corporate entities and the CEO of Nord Stream AG, an international consortium of five major companies overseeing the construction of Russias Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Germany. However, the administration still expressed opposition to the construction of the pipeline. The claim was originally reported by the news website Axios on May 20, 2021. In the original report, the publication cited two sources who had been briefed on the decision. Axios Snopes contacted the State Department and was told the agency had submitted a report to Congress on May 19 saying the U.S. was lifting sanctions on five entities, four vessels, and Nord Stream 2 AG CEO Matthias Warnig. Unknown at the time of this writing was which specific entities would be waived. These sanctions were currently required under the Protecting Europes Energy Security Act (PEESA).  PEESA Nord Stream 2 is a wide pipeline network of offshore natural gas lines that run under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. The pipelines have largely been opposed by the U.S. and some European nations that believe their creation would increase Russias influence in the region. Under PEESA, the U.S. is granted the authority to advance national security and foreign policy objectives, in particular, to address Russian pipeline projects that use coercive purposes and create risks to U.S. national security, threaten Europes energy security, and that could endanger Europes political and economic welfare. Nord Stream 2 PEESA  Map of the proposed Nord Stream 2. Samuel Bailey/Public Domain  Samuel Bailey/Public Domain   Russia uses its energy export pipelines to create national and regional dependencies on Russian energy supplies, leveraging these dependencies to expand its political, economic, and military influence, weaken European security, and undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, wrote the Bureau of Energy Resources in an April 9 statement. These pipelines also reduce European energy diversification, and hence weaken European energy security. statement A spokesperson for the State Department referred our team to this statement written by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on May 19, 2021. this statement I have determined that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO Matthias Warnig, and Nord Stream 2 AGs corporate officers, wrote Blinken. Todays actions demonstrate the Administrations commitment to energy security in Europe, consistent with the Presidents pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe. While the Biden administration supported waiving sanctions on some elements associated with Nord Stream AG, the administration maintained its opposition to construction of Nord Stream 2  and that seemed at odds with statements made by Blinken during his Jan. 19 nomination hearing, when he said the administration would do whatever we can to prevent that completion of Nord Stream 2. Jan. 19 nomination hearing, Sanctions are placed on companies that the U.S. determines meet certain criteria/specifications that suggest a danger to national security. The State Department, in conjunction with the Biden administration, can also determine when they want to waive  or temporarily pause the application of  such sanctions. Blinken said that the administration would continue to oppose the completion of the project that it acknowledged would weaken European energy security and that of Ukraine, the Eastern flank NATO, and EU countries. However, the sanctions that were waived  not lifted, as some media reports claimed  allowed for the continuation of various transactions and activities involving the Marine Rescue Service, which are unrelated to Nord Stream 2 construction. These activities include a range of search and rescue, environmental, and other missions. Issuance of this waiver also provides space for diplomatic engagement with Germany to address the risks a completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European energy security, an official with the State Department told Snopes in an interview. In the statement sent to Snopes, Blinken reiterated that the administration would continue to oppose completion of the project. Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering, Blinken continued. Though we may not always agree, our alliances remain strong, and our position is in line with our commitment to strengthen our Transatlantic relationships as a matter of national security. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the Palo Alto University professor who testified before Congress in September 2018 that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while they were both in high school in the 1980s, was the focus of a number of baseless and false rumors spread in an attempt to tarnish her credibility.  number baseless false rumors spread attempt tarnish credibility One of the more disturbing smear campaigns centered an alleged photograph of Ford from 1982 that was shared along with comments insinuating that she was too physically unattractive for a handsome young man such as Brett Kavanaugh to target for sexual assault: A number of individuals also shared this fake photograph alongside a genuine image of Brett Kavanaugh from his high school yearbook in order to strengthen their flawed argument that "handsome" Brett would never assault "ugly" Ford: shared yearbook   This comparison did not a use a real photograph of Christine Blasey Ford, but nonetheless it was widely shared on Twitter, Facebook, internet forums and web sites along with comments claiming that it was "proof" of Kavanaugh's innocence as he would never sexually assault someone who was "ugly": comments claiming proof innocence sexually assault This is Dr. Ford in 1982. I am going to go ahead and say this proves that she is lying. Christine Blasey ford in 1982. Proof positive Kavanaugh is innocent! Im pretty sure no one was banging this chick in 1982. #justsaying #christineblaseyford #kavanaugh #metoo Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. She must have been fending off men with a stick. ??????? This was Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Theres NOT enough beer on the planet.... Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Proof positive Kavanaugh is innocent! This is Christine Blasey Ford in 1982 , I think she was delusional, " some thing did happen to her ! But not with who she dreamed up ! These pictures are of Christine Blasey Ford the paid accuser and Judge Brett Kavanaugh from 1982, is confirmation of his innocence ... I don't think Brett would have been 1000 miles close to where Christine Blasey Ford was. What say you all? This picture was also shared by Lanny Lancaster, the Cabarrus County (North Carolina) GOP chairman, with the caption:  This is the alleged sexual assault victim. Wow. Lancaster defended his decision to share the photograph to the News Observer, arguing that he was simply trying to show that the media's portrayal of Ford was inaccurate: caption News Observer I didnt say anything. I just said this is her picture. Basically, the media is distorting the facts on this lady. Everything shes said is made up. She has no evidence whatsoever. I support that theory, Lancaster said. Lancaster said he takes issue with how the news media is portraying Fords early life. The media wants you to think she was a beautiful young lady who was on her way home from the tennis courts ...  Lancaster said. I just wanted you to see the real person. I wanted people to see that this is really her. The problem with the argument implied here is twofold. First, sexual assaulters targets victims based on factors other than physical appearance. The notion that physical attractiveness of the victim is a primary criterion in such attacks is a myth that perpetuates the harmful notion that it is a woman's fault for being assaulted: myth Myth: Only certain kinds of people get raped. It cannot happen to me. FACT: Rapists act without considering their victim's physical appearance, dress, age, race, gender, or social status. Assailants seek out victims who they perceive to be vulnerable. The Orange County Rape Crisis Center has worked with victims from infancy to ninety-two years of age and from all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Myth: Women incite men to rape. FACT: Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape. Second, this photograph does not show Christine Blasey Ford, in 1982 or in any other year. This picture is one of an as-yet unidentified person which has been used for various memes ever since it first appeared on the internet in "Bad Yearbook" and "Bad Family Photo" galleries around 2011. Blasey Ford's name was never attached to this photograph until September 2018, when internet trolls began to claim so without evidence in order to tarnish her credibility. Bad Yearbook Bad Family Photo Here are genuine images of Christine Blasey Ford taken from her 1982 and 1984 yearbooks:    WorldWideInterweb.com.  "The 100 Worst Yearbook Photos of All Time."
  22 August 2012. Fallon, Brian.  "Why the FBI Should Investigate 'Boofing.'"
  Politico.  1 October 2018. Specht, Paul.  "NC Republican Leader Uses Photo to Mock Christine Blasey Ford. Its Not Her."
  News Observer.  3 October 2018.