Adam Sandler Death Hoax
For years, comedian Adam Sandler has been the target of fictional online reports supposedly informing the world of his death. For example, on January 13, 2017, LinkBeef published an item asserting that Sandler had been found dead of an apparent suicide: LinkBeef dead US actor and comedian Adam Sandler has been found dead, aged 49, in an apparent suicide. Marin County Police in California said he was pronounced dead at his home shortly after officials responded to an emergency call around noon local time ... His publicist said he had been battling severe depression. The local Sheriffs office said Sandler was found unconscious and not breathing at his home near Tiburon, north of San Francisco. At this time, the Sheriffs Office Coroner Division suspects the death to be a suicide due to asphyxia, but a comprehensive investigation must be completed before a final determination is made, police said in a statement. In a statement, Adams wife, Jackie Sandler, said she was utterly heartbroken and asked that he be remembered for the joy he brought to the world. That report was nothing more than another celebrity death hoax from fake news purveyor LinkBeef, whose previously published falsehoods include claims that a gang member died after gold plating his genitals, that a "lab-grown" baby had been born, that the pilot of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was found alive in Taiwan, and that a wealthy man attempted to recruit many women to be the prospective mothers of his children. genitals baby Malaysia Airlines prospective mothers Like many long-running fake news outfits, the page renders first as "LinkBeef" before reloading to display "Interesting Things Daily." Then, in late 2020, a TikTok user revived the false rumor by posting a video with the text, "Adam Sandler has now been pronounced dead after drowning." video   Again, this was not a factual retelling of events. Sandler was alive and in the public's eye at the time, promoting recent projects, such as "Hubie Halloween." Hubie Halloween The rumor surfaced again in January 2022, and tabloids such as The Sun featured the above-mentioned TikTok in articles compiling social media users' reaction to the false rumor. The Sun Meanwhile, the phrase "Adam Sandler dead" filled Twitter, and pieces such as the below-transcribed excerpt from a Nigerian junk news website were circulating: Adam Sandler dead pieces Adam Sandler Death  Obituary: On January 12th, 2022 learned about the death of Adam Sandler through a Social Media post. He was an American-based actor, comedian and producer Billy Madison, Big Daddy, The Longest Yard are some of the best comedic roles throughout his career. The cause of his death is car accident. But they left behind a legacy of lovable memories, and those who knew him will miss him greatly. [...] Im sorry to share this sad news about the passing of Adam Sandler. His family and friends are in a state of shock after the unexpected death of him. This was untrue. Sandler, 55, was not dead and the alleged story about a vehicle crash appeared to be made up out of whole cloth. In fact, Sandler was engaging with fans publicly in January 2022, including via the below-displayed tweet to honor Bob Saget after his death (that was real) on Jan. 9. Jan. 9   This report was updated to include information about the death hoax in early 2022.
In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. Claim:  Letter to the Wall Steet Journal responds to a "Where's the Outrage?" editorial. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills, CA, in response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31, 2008. Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I? I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public. The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America, is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair. Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment? When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could  not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country. I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants. I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English. I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee, last I checked, is still part of the United States. If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history. In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country. I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews  one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end? As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit. But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags. So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me. Alisa Wilson, Ph.D.Beverly Hills, California Origins:  On 31 July 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, entitled "Where's the Outrage? Really."  The gist of Mr. Brooks' commentary was to note that"virtually every group in the [U.S.] population [was] less angry" in 2008 than in 1996 with the exception of those who identify themselves as "very liberal," and to question why "folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment." editorial In response to Mr. Brooks' opinion piece, Beverly Hills, California, resident Dr. Alisa Wilson penned the above-quoted letter, which was submitted to (but not published by) the Wall Street Journal.  As Dr. Wilson told us: a) I did indeed write that letter in August 2008.  Please note, however, that although I submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the Wall Street Journal did not publish my letter.   b) The thoughts and sentiments in that article are my own, but apparently have resonated with many people.   c) I have seen some people in the "blog-o-sphere" question whether I am a real person.  Yes, indeed, I exist. Last updated:  19 May 2009 Michael Wolff's bombshell bookFire and Fury: Inside the Trump White Houseis full of salacious stories from President Donald Trump's first year in office. As media outlets published excerpts from the book in early January 2018, Twitter user PixelatedBoat took advantage of the frenzy to share a fake passage in which White House aides purportedly confessed that they had created a "Gorilla Channel" in order to placate a furious Trump: book share  (@pixelatedboat/Twitter) This fake excerpt ended up getting mixed in with real excerpts from the book, effectively fooling some readers into believing (in not such an unlikely turn of events, given how improbable much of 2016 and 2017 were) that the White House had actually created a "Gorilla Channel" to entertain the President of the United States. Twitter user @PixelatedBoat is best known for creating the internet phrase"Milkshake Duck," which refers to a beloved entity that the Internet quickly turns on and devours after damaging information about it is revealed; they frequently post humorous and obviously satirically content on their feed. After the Gorilla Channel joke was mistaken for a genuine excerpt, they changed their handle to "the gorilla channel thing is a joke" and posted a message expressing remorse: @PixelatedBoat phrase Milkshake Duck tfw you parody a guy making up shit about Trump but people believe it so you become part of the problem PixelatedBoat's "Gorilla Channel" joke is reminiscent of the fake transcripts between President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair that were created by comedian Michael Spicer. In case you were curious, Bill Clinton never said that he punchesslabs of ham to work through his frustrations. punches In mid-January 2024, a viral video purportedly showed a participant at the 2024 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, saying [expletive] you onstage to WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab. video The participant appears to stare down Schwab while standing on stage and adds, [expletive] your new world order. We the people were born free, we will stay free, and you and all of your globalist friends including everyone in this room can go [expletive] yourselves. The video was also uploaded to YouTube:  It appeared to originate from Damon Imani, a content creator, on Jan. 16, 2024, as it had his name as a watermark on the top left.  (@damonimani/X) Many online users reposted the video, including this post in French with the caption: A guest like no other, Damon Imani on stage at #WEF in Davos. reposted this post Some people appeared to think the video was authentic. It is a work of satire, however, as pointed out by Imani, the original creator and the man in the video. In a post below the original video, he wrote, Satire but true. This video is also available on Rumble here and Klaus Schwab can go f himself. Based on that statement, and the lack of any evidence at all confirming the incident happened, we rate this claim as Labeled Satire. creator According to his website (emphasis, ours): Damon Imani is an Iranian producer and artist based in Denmark, who creates video content related to various topics, including societal issues, news, and current events. Known for his satirical approach, Imani draws attention to societal and political issues through his work. With the tense political climate of the world in the 2016-20 era, Imani's content gained traction from social media users from both sides, as well as public figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk, and many other influential figures. His work has also been featured in major media outlets such as USA Today, InfoWars, The Associated Press, BPR Politics And Business, and many more. It is also obvious from the contrast in lighting on Imani's face compared with the lighting on Schwab that Imani edited himself onto the WEF stage. Posting on X after his video gained more attention, Imani complained about the language of the community note being placed under his original video, writing, I've requested additional review. Even the language of this CN is laughable; 1. It links to my own notice. Duh! 2. Makes opinion based argument that I can't use "breaking" for something that's not breaking. This is a straightforward hijack of Community Notes to demonetize a very smart immigrant. writing  This is not the first time we have fact checked false claims involving Schwab. The WEF, as we have reported in the past, is an influential, international, non-governmental organization known for fostering private-public partnerships around economy, international development, and more. The organization, which Schwab founded in 1971, is the target of many conspiracy theories surrounding its real-life ties to elite networks that online rumor-mongers believe are nefariously planning to create totalitarian regimes. first time reported influential founded conspiracy For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why Ibrahim, Nur. Did WEF Say Humans Will All Wear a Uniform By 2030? Snopes, 7 July 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-fashion-humans-uniforms/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Imani, Damon. New? Start Here! Damon Imani, 15 Oct. 2018, https://damonimani.com/about.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Kasprak, Alex. Was World Economic Forum Vice Chairman Aboard the Collapsed Titan Submersible? Snopes, 23 June 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-titan-submersible/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. LaMagdeleine, Izz Scott. No, the World Economic Forum Hasnt Ordered Governments to Legalize Marriage With Animals. Snopes, 7 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-legalize-marriage-animals/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. "World Economic Forum Archives." Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/tag/world-economic-forum/. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   false WHAT'S   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S   President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 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 In mid-November 2020, after all major news organizations declared former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden the winner of the presidential election, President Donald Trump's campaign claimed in a series of fundraising emails that the election was "far from over," and that supporters should not believe messages to the contrary. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Joe Biden Donald Trump here In other words, the emails claimed either Biden or Trump could serve as the country's 46th president come Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, 2021  even though Biden won key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable vote margins and exceeded the 270 Electoral College votes required to win the presidency.   The emails  like the president's tweets that falsely claimed he had won or denied Biden's victory  were part of an aggressive disinformation campaign attempting to attack the integrity of America's democratic process and convince supporters that Trump had a significant chance to serve another term. falsely claimed he had won "Joe Biden only won in the eyes of the FAKE NEWS MEDIA. I concede NOTHING. We have a long way to go  this was a flawed ELECTION," said a Nov. 19 campaign email obtained by Snopes.   To unpack the underlying claim  that American elections provide losing candidates an opportunity to defy the outcome of the popular vote  let's first lay out the country's steps for presidential elections under the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws. Every four years, when Americans cast ballots in presidential elections, they are participating in the countrys popular vote. That happened Nov. 3 in the Trump-Biden race. Days later on Nov. 7, Biden was announced the winner of the popular vote based on the number of votes counted so far compared to the margin of votes between him and Trump in key battleground states. (Read why and how journalists make that determination in presidential races here.) here Typically, at that point in an election, the losing candidate acknowledges defeat by conceding to his opponent and addressing supporters in a speech. But Trump not only did not do that, he and his allies went a step further by spewing the unfounded conspiracy theory that any person or group who acknowledged Biden's victory was working to undermine the president. defeat by conceding Whether a candidate accepts the outcome of the popular vote or not, state officials at polling sites nationwide continue to count remaining ballots over the course of days or weeks, according to their respective rules. That process, which historically is a procedural step to cement the outcome of the popular vote, requires governors to prepare whats called a Certificate of Ascertainment that lists their state's slate of electors. For example, Biden won the popular vote in Minnesota, so that's state's certificate would list 10 Democratic electors who pledged to vote for Biden through the Electoral College. popular vote electors Likewise, if, hypothetically, Trump had won the Midwestern state, the state's certificate would list a different group of 10 people  electors who pledged to vote for the Republican candidate. All of this said, electors meet at state capitals in early December, weeks after Election Day, to formally cast votes for president and vice president, per guidelines outlined in the Constitution. No constitutional provision, nor any federal law, requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote; however, the majority of states and the District of Columbia have their own laws governing the Electoral College and aim to keep electors from defying the popular vote. Here are specific deadlines for those above-described steps in presidential elections, per The Associated Press: The Associated Press Dec. 8 is the deadline for resolving election disputes at the state level. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results are to be completed by this date. Dec. 14: Electors vote by paper ballot in their respective states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-three states and D.C. have laws or party regulations requiring electors to vote the same way the popular vote goes in the state, and in some states, electors can even be replaced or subjected to penalties, according to the Congressional Research Service. Dec. 23: The certificates must be delivered to the designated officials. If they are not delivered, the law provides alternative avenues for getting the results to Washington. Jan. 6, 2021: The House and Senate hold a joint session to count the electoral votes. If one ticket has received 270 or more electoral votes, the president of the Senate, currently Vice President Mike Pence, announces the results. So, in short, a presidential election doesn't end on Election Day, nor when a candidate is projected the winner by news media. Rather, presidential elections officially conclude the following year, in January. But it's a false interpretation of state and federal laws governing presidential elections to consider those continuing steps after polls close on Election Day  when states certify results or choose electors, or the Electoral College votes for president  as opportunities to defy the popular vote. Per analysis of the guidelines by constitutional experts and election academics, the post-election day procedures mainly serve to cement what voters decided at the county and state level. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign alleging the election was "far from over" asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses.  Brendan Fischer "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, it was accurate to claim the 2020 presidential election was incomplete as of mid-November. However, it was false to categorize the remaining procedures as reasonable opportunities for Trump to overturn Biden's victory. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." In June 2022, viral social media posts claimed that police in Wilmington, North Carolina, had "escorted" protesters from the far-right Proud Boys group towards an LGBTQ reading event for children, at a local public library. For example, on June 22, trans rights activist Erin Reed posted several photographs to Twitter, along with the following description: posted Proud Boys stormed the Pine Valley Public Library in Wilmington, North Carolina. I did some research from people who witnessed things on the ground and took pictures, and it would seem that not only was the Sheriff's office ineffective - they ESCORTED the proud boys to the room!   Also on Twitter, @wapplehouse shared similar photos and wrote:  shared similar photos the fucking Proud Boys showed up to a local Pride story time event today for 7 year olds and to the surprise of absolutely no one were escorted into the building and right to the room it was being held in by the [New Hanover Sheriff's Office]. A spokesperson for the New Hanover Sheriff's Office (NHSO) firmly denied to Snopes that any officer had "escorted" the Proud Boys towards the event. The spokesperson told Snopes the agency had video footage which corroborated that assertion, but its public release was unlikely because of the demands of North Carolina state law.  demands of North Carolina state law Either way, no one has so far made public any evidence that definitively establishes the truth of that law enforcement agency's role in the June 21 incident. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If relevant evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly.  The event in question was an LGBTQ "Pride reading time" for children, and took place at Pine Valley public library in Wilmington, North Carolina, on June 21.  It was protested by local members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group. Earlier in June, several of that movement's leaders were charged with seditious conspiracy over their alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.  far-right group charged with seditious conspiracy More broadly, the summer of 2022 had seen a rising tide of homophobia and transphobia in the U.S., with a particular rhetorical focus on purportedly protecting children from "groomers"  a homophobic slur with a long and odious ancestry.  long and odious ancestry The photographs and descriptions that formed the basis of viral "police escort" claims were originally published by Angie Smith Kahney, who was present at the library at the time of the protest.  In a series of Facebook and Instagram posts, she shared pictures of NHSO deputies talking with protesters, as well as walking and standing near them. In one, she wrote that the sheriff's deputies had "led the Proud Boys and their entourage right through the library TO THE ROOM FULL OF CHILDREN..." talking with protesters walking she wrote Snopes put those allegations  that police had "escorted" the Proud Boys into the library and/or towards the room where the event was taking place  to Lt. JJ Brewer, a spokesperson for the NHSO. Brewer firmly denied them, saying "That's 100 percent incorrect." Rather, he said, an NHSO supervisor had endeavored to walk ahead of the crowd of protesters and make sure they could not enter the room where the Pride reading time event was taking place. According to Brewer, while the protesters were legally permited to enter the main library building, they would have needed to be properly registered, and accompanied by children, in order to attend the event itself.  He added that none of the protesters ever entered that room, nor did they attempt to enter it, and "at no time did they cause a disturbance in the library." We asked Smith Kahney for her response to those assertions, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. However, in an earlier Facebook post, she insisted that the Proud Boys were indeed disruptive and intimidating inside the library, and shouted obscenities at children and their parents, and said it was library staff  rather than sheriff's deputies  who ensured the protesters did not have access to the room. earlier Facebook post Snopes also asked New Hanover County officials for their account of the events that took place at the Pine Valley library  which is operated by the county  on June 21.  In a statement provided to Snopes, Linda Thompson, the county's chief diversity and equity officer, said the protesters only entered the library building after the reading event had concluded, although some attendees still remained inside the room: ...After the Storytime program had ended, several members of the protesting group wanted to come inside. Anyone from the public is permitted inside the building as long as they are not actively protesting or disturbing other patrons, based on the library's code of conduct.  The library director came inside with them and deputies quickly made their way to the door of Storytime, to ensure safety for library patrons and staff who were still in the room. The members of the protesting group were not allowed in the closed room where the event had been held and families were still in, and there was no disturbance inside the building.  Sheriffs deputies and library staff also provided help to parents and kids who were still in attendance (some had left already) on where to exit the library following the event. Parents and children were not in danger at any time. Video footage will likely be required in order to definitively answer questions about the NHSO's role in the incidents, and whether or not they "escorted" Proud Boys towards the event. So far, such footage has not been published, and it is not clear what actions and events are shown in the still images posted online by Smith Kahney. Brewer told Snopes that the sheriff's office did have such footage, and that it clearly demonstrated that deputies did not "escort" the protesters towards the room, so that they might intimidate or harass attendees at the Pride event.  However, as Brewer himself pointed out, North Carolina has unusually strict rules around the publication of police bodyworn camera footage. Police, for example, cannot unilaterally release such footage, but a judge can authorize its release. Brewer told Snopes it was therefore not likely that the bodycam footage would imminently be made public.  unusually strict rules Until or unless relevant evidence does become available, our rating remains "Unproven." Groomers Rhetoric Targeting LGBTQ People Nothing New. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/. Accessed 23 June 2022.  Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach. 6 June 2022, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and.  Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To Stand Back and Stand By? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/. Accessed 23 June 2022. Claim:  President Obama's November 2010 trip to India will cost taxpayers $200 million per day.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] I have no first hand knowledge of this, just passing along. I could not belive this was true (but had also heard it on the air, thought was hype), but when you Google it and read a number of sites, it does appear to be true.  Tell him to stay there !!!  Just in case some of you dont follow current events as closely as I do (yes, I am a "news-junkie")  you may have missed the following information since it never appears in our wonderful newspapers or on most TV news.  The Barack Obama family is leaving tomorrow for a ten day trip to India .  This is going to be an historical and incredible trip, mostly in the numbers of people going, costs, etc.  1)       The entourage will include THREE THOUSAND  people 2)       FORTY aircraft will be making this trip 3)       TWO marine helicopters are being dismantled, flown to India, put back together to fly the Obamas around the country 4)       The entire 500 room Taj Mahal Hotel has been reserved for this group 5)       Cost is estimated to be $200 million PER DAY for ten days 6)       Keep this in mind when you get the next notice of an increase in your taxes!!! No one should ever wonder  why taxpayers are angry about this type of extravagance while most citizens are struggling with day-to-day costs of living, etc. Origins:  On 2 November 2010, the Press Trust of India published an article about U.S. President Barack Obama's upcoming 10-day Asian trip (scheduled to begin in India, followed by visits to Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan), stating that  the American chief executive would be accompanied by a contingent of 3,000 people and would be taking over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Palace hotel during his stay in Mumbai, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of about $200 million per day.  Another report from the same source claimed the President would be "protected by a fleet of 34 warships" during his time in Mumbai: article report "The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said. About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments. [President Obama] will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there. "Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity. The information from that Indian article was quickly picked up and repeated as fact by a number of media outlets in the U.S. and elsewhere, but its veracity is dubious.  The only source for the claim about the mind-blowing $200 million per day expense outlay was a single foreign news report which quoted an anonymous Indian official and provided no detail whatsoever (or even a general explanation) about how the $200 million sum was derived or could possibly be expended. Any presidential trip abroad (the purpose of this trip is official business, not a personal "vacation," as claimed by some sources) involves considerable expense to transport and house security officials and presidential aides and staffers, and those costs will likely be on the higher side for this tripsince President Obama will be traveling to a city which was recently the target of terrorist attacks  and will be attending the G20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea, along with other world leaders (all of which requiresheightened security, as well as the presence of additional numbers of U.S. government officials).   G20 Summit However, citing a cost figure of $200 million per day stretches credulity to the breaking point: That number would entail a total outlay of $400 million for the two-day visit (a whopping $2 billion if the cost were applied across the entire ten-day trip), and even if President Obama were accompanied by a prodigious 3,000-person entourage, with the U.S. government picking up the entire tab for all of them, the U.S. would have to be spending the unbelievably staggering sum of $66,000 per person per day to reach that figure.   And, as the the Wall Street Journal observed, the details of the report are "demonstrably incorrect," and it certainly isn't the case that the U.S. will be picking up the tab for everyone traveling with the president: The report is demonstrably incorrect. It says the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai  it hasn't  and that the press traveling with Mr. Obama will be staying there. We won't. Besides, the press pays its own way at considerable cost to the media outlets, not the U.S. taxpayer. Additionally, U.S. officials disclaimed numeric figures cited for the President's Asian visit as "wildly inflated" and "absurd": White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down the $200 million-a-day figure: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," Vietor said.  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected the claim that 34 warships would patrol the Mumbai coast while Obama is in town.  "I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days," he said. "We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia  that's just comical. "Nothing close to that is being done, but the notion that president would require security as he travels to India and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.  A military official also [said] the warship claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most. Moreover, CNN  noted that the cost of similar trips undertaken by other presidents came nowhere close to the $200 million per day figure being claimed of President Obama's Asian visit: While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated. For example, an 11-day trip by then-President Bill Clinton to Africa in 1998 involving about 1,300 people cost $5.2 million a day, according to the federal Government Accountability Office, which adjusted for inflation. The U.S. government isn't likely to be forthcoming with a cost breakdown for President Obama's Asia trip (particularly since a large chunk of the expenses necessarily involve security arrangements, which obviously can't be publicly outlined or detailed), but it's probably safe to say that the ultimate cost will be well short of the claimed $200 million per diem figure. Some readers who inquired about this item amusingly garbled its details, mistaking Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace hotel for the famous Taj Mahal mausoleum in Agra: Is it true that President Obama rented the entire Taj Mahal and is bringing in the near future, thousands of people to a meeting there? Last updated:  5 November 2010     Martinez, Luis.  "Pentagon Dismisses Reports of 34 Warships for Obama Trip Security."   ABCNews.com.   4 November 2010.     Robinson, Dan.  "Obama Aims to Expand, Strengthen Relationships on 10-Day Asia Trip."   VOANews.com.   1 November 2010.     Weisman, Jonathan.  "Fuzzy Math Dogs Obama's Asia Trip."   The Wall Street Journal.   4 November 2010.     CNN.com.  "Debunking the Myth: The Cost of Obama's Trip to Asia."   5 November 2010.     Economic Times.  "Force One Inspect Venues of Obama's Visit."   3 November 2010.     FOXNews.com.  "Security Entourage Earning Epic Reputation Ahead of Obama India Visit."   4 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "US to Spend USD 200 Mn a Day on Obama's Mumbai Visit."   2 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "White House Paraphernalia to Be in India for Obama Visit."   4 November 2010. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal received a letter on Dec. 12 that likely gained the attention of his staff.The author was Grover Norquist, the president of the Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform, best known for the pledge he asks political candidates to sign vowing to oppose and vote against tax increases. Nearly one-half of the members of Congress, including nine from Georgia, have signed the pledge. During his successful 2010 campaign, Deal promised ATR that he would oppose and veto all tax increases as governor.Norquist, you see, has some pull.His letter to the governor urged Georgia lawmakers considering a tax overhaul next year to pass legislation that is revenue-neutral. Norquist also warned officials here to stay away from tax increases in other areas. A portion of one sentence caught our attention.Last years target was tobacco; this year may be a repeat, or we may hear proposals for excise tax increases on alcohol or sweetened beverages, Norquist wrote. Whatever the case may be, targeted excise tax increases drive commerce across state lines and hurt small businesses bottom lines.The question for us: Do excise tax increases, as Norquist wrote, drive commerce across state lines?Excise taxes are placed on items such as cigarettes and alcohol. Most excise taxes are on cigarettes. Georgia, like most Southern states, has among the lowest excise taxes on cigarettes (37 cents a pack) in the nation. One news report earlier this said state Senate leaders are considering raising the cigarette tax by $1 a pack.The Americans for Tax Reform staff argued its case that Norquist is right, pointing to the results of excise tax increases in three places, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and South Carolina. Heres a closer look:ChicagoATR told us that Chicagoans flocked to neighboring Indiana when Cook County, which encompasses the Windy City, raised its cigarette tax by $1 in 2006. After the 2006 changes in Cook County, Chicagoans paid among the highest prices for cigarettes in the country. A team of University of Illinois-Chicago researchers found in a sample survey of discarded cigarette packs that 75 percent of them came from outside Cook County, The Huffington Post reported. The taxes on a pack of cigarettes in Chicago in 2007 was $4.05. The taxes were $1.37 outside city limits.Washington, D.C.ATR says Washington saw an 11 percent net decline in cigarette tax revenue after it raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents, to $2.50 a pack in 2009. Cigarette taxes in the nations capital were already higher than most states before 2009. In Virginia, the taxes for a pack of smokes is 30 cents, nearly the lowest in the nation. Missouri has the lowest cigarette taxes, 17 cents a pack, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. City officials still expected to bank $30 million from the increase, although it was less than their initial projection of about $45 million.South CarolinaGeorgia saw a net increase in cigarette sales of nearly 1.3 million packs in the six months after South Carolina raised its excise tax rate in July 2010, ATR says. Cigarette tax revenue did decline slightly in South Carolina in the first 12 months since its increase, records show. South Carolina previously had the lowest cigarette tax in the nation, at 7 cents a pack. Its now 57 cents a pack. Many smokers in the Palmetto State were not happy with the changes.Matthew Farrelly, whose research on cigarette excise taxes has been used by others, said some people will travel across state lines to buy cigarettes once excise taxes are raised. Other smokers will buy by the carton or choose a lesser brand to save money, he said. Farrelly contends its bogus for anyone to say large numbers of smokers will rush to another state to buy cigarettes once an increase takes effect because few Americans live near a border. He also noted the states that raise their excise taxes eventually make a profit.On net, increases in taxes on cigarettes lead to revenue all the time, said Farrelly, senior director, RTI International Public Healthy Policy Research Program, headquartered near Raleigh, N.C.Our conclusion:Norquist has a good argument for his basic point, based on the research weve seen and people weve interviewed. The difference in taxes between some places, however, is so large ($2.20 a pack between Washington, D.C., and Virginia) that it adds some important context to this argument. With that additional bit of information, we rate Norquists claim as Mostly True. For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:  This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include:  The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were:  Unemployed: 7.8 million  People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million  People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification  not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True.