Papa John's Won't Share 'Excessive Profits' with Employees?
On 18 February 2016, the Facebook page "I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists" posted a meme featuring a photograph of Papa John's CEO John Schnatter along with a quote ostensibly uttered by him about not sharing company profits with employees:   Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words. AZ Quotes Sherman's Wilderness Straight Dope The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: comments "Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis. "We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. "If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interest." In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context. piece
In a letter shared by the joint labor union Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) on Feb. 4, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump resigned as a member of the union. Trumps resignation came just as the union leadership was moving to expel Trump in the wake of his alleged provocation of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. shared resignation The letterhead appeared to carry the logo for what was called the Office of the Former President, created by Trumps team in Palm Beach, Florida, to serve as the official outlet for Trumps statements and to share his future plans. Office of the Former President However, now, the stationery on which the letter was submitted says Office of Donald J. Trump. The letter was shared on SAG-AFTRAs website, along with the union's response to Trump, which was a simple, Thank you. website response As seen in the document, the end of the letter is indeed signed with President Donald J. Trump.   In the letter, Trump cited his own acting experience and contributions to television: Im very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice  to name just a few! Ive also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others. He concluded with a criticism of the unions actions: Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me  besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas  as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, Why isnt the union fighting for me? These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious. I no longer wish to be associated with your union. Professor and author Seth Abramson pointed out how signing the letter this way is troubling, given that Trump is on trial for inciting the riots:  However, signing a letter as President does not appear to be out of the ordinary. Former President Barack Obama's statements are also released under "President Obama." Former presidents are still addressed as President [insert name] or Mr. President. All U.S. presidents retain their titles for life. statements addressed Given that the official letter was shared by SAG-AFTRA, along with Trumps signature, we rate this claim as True. In July 2015, many online viewers were intrigued by a meme reporting that Brian May, the lead guitarist for the band Queen, is also an astrophysicist.  While Brian May's educational history is certainly no secret, interest in the rock legend's other life as an astrophysicist was renewed when the musician visited the team behind NASA's New Horizons interplanetary space probe to discuss results from the probe's recent fly-by of Pluto: visited New Horizons  As lead guitarist for the legendary rock group Queen, Brian May has spent an entire career in the spotlight. But May traded the music for his other passion  science  and spent some time backstage with the New Horizons team as it dived into the first results from the Pluto flyby. May, who has a doctorate in astrophysics, was awed by the opportunity to meet the team and sift through images and other Pluto system data in real time. And he'll have other opportunities down the road, as mission principal investigator Alan Stern added May as a New Horizons science collaborator. May also wrote about his time with the New Horizon's team in a blog post  on his web site dated 20 July 2015: blog post  I had an unforgettable 3 days with the amazing New Horizons team. Im still 'coming down. Alan Stern, leader of the Science Team at APL in Laurel, Maryland, personally made sure I was treated like one of the family, as a collaborator, and I felt privileged to the nth degree. I was, of course, as always, obsessed with finding stereoscopic opportunities while I was there, and the Gods of the Underworld must have been with me, because I was there when the first 2 by 2 mosaic full-planet picture was downloaded from the probe, and assembled into exactly the required highish res partner to the iconic last-look photo which preceded the final fly-by. Baseline must be a few hundred thousand miles, but Ill need to check that. Of course the New Horizons guys were already doing serious science on this image as it arrived, but I was able to assemble the two images to make the most satisfying stereo view I can ever remember making. I got some help making some prints on site, so I was able to show this 3-D to the entire team through the lenses of some OWLS I took over. So this is definitely the first REAL high quality stereo image of Pluto in history. And we can say its officially NH approved ! No fiddling this time. The right image is the last-look photo from 15th July, and the left image is the two-by-two downloaded from NH on the 17th. All I did was fine-adjust the orientations to match up, and match up the colouring by eye.  According to May's official biography, he was working toward his PhD in astrophysics when he put his education on hold to go on tour with Queen after the group's "popularity first exploded." In 2007, more than 30 years after May left school to pursue a career as a musician, he turned in his 48,000-word thesis for the Imperial College, London: biography thesis It's been the longest gap year ever. It was a tough decision back then to leave my studies for music. I'm so proud to be here today. Astronomy has always interested me. I used to love sitting at home and watching Sir Patrick Moore on the Sky at Night." https://youtu.be/E-zurr9PHKg In terms of educated rock guitarists, music fans may also recall that Tom Scholz, founder of the popular band Boston, holds a master's degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and worked for Polaroid Corporation as a senior product design engineer prior to hitting it big in the music world. Tom Scholz Twitter threads sometimes make for strange bedfellows. With more than 2 million followers, Chelsea Clintoncertainly qualifies as an experienced tweeter, yet in January 2018 she found herself in the awkward position of having to publicly deny that she's a Satan worshiper all because she jumped into a Twitter thread to lend moral support to Chrissy Teigen. Chelsea Clinton Chrissy Teigen Our cautionary tale begins with a 30 December attack on Teigen by a "Pizzagate" conspiracy theorist bent on implicating the supermodel in an imagined pizza parlor pedophile ring run by and for highly placed Democrats (such as Chelsea Clinton's parents). Pizzagate Teigen found the smear quite disturbing, writing: Alright. I debated saying something about this but I'm pretty disturbed over here. The fact that there are people with these...thoughts...is really scary. pic.twitter.com/9OtWKHxUgR pic.twitter.com/9OtWKHxUgR  christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) December 30, 2017 December 30, 2017  Yeah yeah it's "just Twitter" but I'm pretty sure this *sick* person is saying we are darksided pizzagate pedophiles who traffic our daughter. Ummmmm this is really scary shit.  christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) December 30, 2017 December 30, 2017 Enter Chelsea Clinton, one of Chrissy Teigen's many Twitter followers. She sent Teigen a message of support and encouragement: Chrissy, sending you & beautiful Luna a huge hug. It is awful & never ok when people threaten or demean any child. I've lost count of the Twitter accounts who've threatened Charlotte with #FGM. While I never bother to report threats against me, I now report every one against her. #FGM  Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) December 31, 2017 December 31, 2017 Whereupon the thread turned into something of a free-for-all. A random troll using the name "Rogue Hooters Staff" (account since deleted) hurled an obscenity at Clinton:   Someone who witnessed this exchange notified Hooters (a restaurant chain most notable for the skimpy attire of its female waitstaff and passable wings) of the bogus account, prompting the official (verified) Hooters account to tweet a disavowal, in turn prompting Clinton  trust us, this will all make sense as you read through the rest of the thread below to tag the Church of Satan: Church of Satan   There are two ways to take that last tweet ("It's been so long! Happy New Year!"). One is in the spirit in which it was obviously intended,namely as a jocular, tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of the absurdity of sharing a Twitter thread with the likes of @Hooters and @ChurchofSatan. The other is to pretend it might actually mean Clinton is a devil worshiper. A number of scornful tweets went the latter route, stating or implying that Clinton worships Satan. One example (since deleted) said, "At least @ChelseaClinton is open about worshiping #Satan. #ChurchOfSatan If only @HillaryClinton could be as honest." Clinton replied with what amounted to a denial: Oh goodness gracious. We can be civil, cheerful, respectful to & friends with people who don't share our religious beliefs. Sometimes, we even marry them. I'm a Methodist & my husband is Jewish, thank you for asking. A very happy New Year to you Rhonda! https://t.co/8UH9SP8EWO https://t.co/8UH9SP8EWO  Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 3, 2018 January 3, 2018 However, the reminder that she, like her mother, is a lifelong Methodist failed to hush that rather large subset of the Twitterverse devoted to spreading Clinton hatred. A former vice presidential candidate chimed in, along with others: Nope. Sadly, this is not a joke. https://t.co/74OU4tElX5 https://t.co/74OU4tElX5  Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) January 4, 2018 January 4, 2018  If you have to deny worshiping Satan, you more than likely worship Satan. #QAnon #PizzaGate #FollowTheWhiteRabbit #Pedogate https://t.co/BeLBU9ECPu #QAnon #PizzaGate #FollowTheWhiteRabbit #Pedogate https://t.co/BeLBU9ECPu  JT - MAGA ??? (@jt_maga) January 4, 2018 January 4, 2018  Chelsea upside cross sways pics for years and all, thst Chrissy who goes to spirit cooking and your mom too; just talking to these people Church of Satan and owl people is too much! #sickclubofpedos #PEDOgate #QANON #FOLLOWTHEWHITERABBIT #THESTORM pic.twitter.com/Pmm69AnmIj #sickclubofpedos #PEDOgate #QANON #FOLLOWTHEWHITERABBIT #THESTORM pic.twitter.com/Pmm69AnmIj  (Jamie)J.A.L.F.T (@jametteriley) January 3, 2018 January 3, 2018  @ChelseaClinton Like mother like daughter. Caught lying and you continue lying.You tweeted a message to the Church of Satan on New Year. https://t.co/wgCl1Ob4qJ @ChelseaClinton https://t.co/wgCl1Ob4qJ  mzaz (@mzaz86442) January 5, 2018 January 5, 2018 We can't help but note the concerted effort to plug Chelsea Clinton's alleged Satanic sympathies into pre-existing narratives impugning the entire Clinton family. Consider the recurring hashtags in the tweets on this subject, which include #QAnon, #Pizzagate, #FollowTheWhiteRabbit and #Pedogate. In certain circles these signify conspiracy theoriesaccusing the Clinton family of all manner of "deep-state" shenanigans, from assassination plots to election rigging to pedophile rings. theories Some of the critical tweets allude to something called "spirit cooking." This refers to a series of performance art events mentioned in WikiLeaks e-mails, which were pounced upon by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Clintons and their inner circle practice occult rituals (although in reality it was nothing of the kind). spirit cooking nothing Others revisit low-resolutionimagesfloating around the Internet for years allegedly showing Chelsea Clinton wearing a necklace with an "inverted" or "upside-down" cross  supposedly a sign of Satan worship. When we asked a Clinton spokesperson about it, however, we were told that she owns no such piece of jewelry. Clinton occasionally wears a Greek (equal-sided) cross that could conceivably be mistaken for (or manipulated in images to look like) an inverted one. images We asked the spokesperson, point-blank, if Chelsea Clinton is a Satan worshiper. The answer, unsurprisingly, was no. The spokesperson confirmed that Clinton is a Methodist, and could in fact be foundas recently as New Year's Eve 2018 attending her non-Satanic Methodist church services in New York City. We also checked in with a representative of the Church of Satan, the Rev. Raul Antony, who confirmed an important piece of background information, namely that prior to the Chrissy Teigen Twitter thread there had never been any direct contact between Chelsea Clinton and the Church of Satan. As Clinton said in one of her tweets, "In 2017, @ChurchofSatan & I were put on a few threads together." Antony told us they were tagged into those threads by Pizzagate conspiracy theorists. We asked him to address the widespread assumption that members of the Church of Satanwhich, to be clear, is a 50-year-old organization distinct from all other groups and individuals purporting to identify themselves as "Satanic"actually worship the devil. organization "No," he said. "We reject all theism and recognize all gods and religions [including Satan] to be man-made social institutions. Still, we find symbols and religion to be an important part of the human experience and embrace the symbol of Satan as the representation of carnality, individualism, and rational self-interest." We thought we might as well ask him if Chelsea Clinton is a Satanist. "No," he said. "She's a Methodist." Kelly, Tiffany. "'Follow the White Rabbit' Is the Most Bonkers Conspiracy Theory You Will Ever Read."
The Daily Dot. 20 November 2017. Martineau, Paris. "The Story Is the New Pizzagate - Only Worse."
New York Magazine. 19 December 2017. Church of Satan. "History of the Church of Satan."
Accessed 1 January 2018. Claim:  Subway is ending its long-running Sub Club promotion due to the prevalence of counterfeit stamps.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Today I went to my local SUBWAY franchise, and was horriied to discover that they will no longer be doing the SUBWAY CLUB stamp program. The cashier at the store told me it was because some kids in California had stolen a roll of stamps and tried to sell it on eBay. He showed me a small in store display that explained that they would no longer be issuing stamps and would honor existing stamps until June 30th, 2005.   Origins:  Regular customers of the Subway chain of sandwich shops, which operates more than 23,000 restaurants in 82 countries, are familiar with one of longest-running promotions in retail history: the Sub   Club.  Ever since the 1980s, Subway customers have received a stamp for every six-inch sandwich purchased (two stamps for a foot-long); filling up a Sub Club card with the requisite number of stamps entitles the customer to a free sandwich.  Alas, by the end of September 2005 the Sub Club will be no more, another victim of technology which makes counterfeiting coupons and proof-of-purchase stamps on home computer equipment all too easy. Coupon fraud has exploded in the last few years as counterfeiters using high-quality printers have not only created phony coupons for their own use, but have also sought to profit by offering millions of dollars' worth of false coupons for sale to others through on-line auction sites.  In some cases grocery stores and other retailers have even stopped accepting legitimate coupons distributed on-line and printed at home because manufacturers have refused to honor counterfeits.  Now, with thousands of Sub Club cards and stamps (real, stolen, and counterfeit) available for sale through auction sites, and Subway franchise owners increasingly discovering counterfeit stamps among their redemptions, the company has decided to pull the plug on the decades-old free sandwich promotion.  Although each Subway restaurant can set its own timeframe, the Sub Club will be phased out company-wide by 1 October 2005.  Subway is designing a replacement for the Sub Club, but details of the new promotion have not yet been announced (although some outlets are now using centrally-stored information retrieved via Subway cards with magnetic strips). Subway cards Last updated:  26 May 2011    Leamon, Scott.   "Police Accuse Pair of College Students with Forging Subway Sub Club Stamps."   WSLS-TV {Roanoke, VA].  22 October 2004. Gov. Andrew Cuomo thinks you can win money by making a bet with someone on New York States tax rates. Ask people about what the state has done with the rates, and everybodys going to say, raise taxes, because it is inconceivable that a government actually lowers taxes, Cuomo said. At public appearances recently, Cuomotoutedwhat he called the lowest tax rate for the middle class in 70 years. Wager anyone you know and say, Did New York State raise taxes or lower taxes? Cuomo said. New York State haslowered taxesfor everyone in the state and every income level in the state. Taxes are always a top issue for voters. So does the governors claim check out? Are middle-class state residents taxed at the lowest rate in seven decades? Whos in the middle? No official state definition exists for the middle class. But in the scope of todays tax brackets, themiddle class arethose making between about $40,000 to $300,000 a year. Whos included in the middle class has changed over time with the rate of inflation. A salary today of $80,000 is equivalent to a $9,000 salary in 1953. The tax brackets used today are not the same as those used in past decades. In 1946, anyone making more than $9,000 was taxed at a 3.5 percent rate. The next year the rate increased to 4.2 percent. In 1948, the rate jumped to 6.3 percent, and thats the year the Cuomo administration bases its claim. The Department of Tax and Financesays most- if not all - earners in the middle class in 1948 would have paid the top rate. That year the top rate applied to people making about $9,000. That fits what the state has defined as middle class in todays dollars, and the Department of Tax and Finance says thats how the middle class would have been defined in that year. How low? Since 1948, the lowest top tax rate fell to between 6.45 and 6.65 percent for people in the same comparable income bracket. That was in 2014, and remains at that level. Thats higher than the now-scheduled rate for 2025 as part ofthis years resolution. Anyone making between $40,000 and $150,000 will see their income tax rate drop to 5.5 percent by that year. The tax rate will drop to 6 percent for those making between $150,000 and $300,000. But there are caveats. The rates do not factor in tax exemptions or deductions, as pointed out by E.J. McMahon from the Empire Center for Public Policy. The center researches and analyzes the states economy, including the tax law. To some extent, the tax rates for 2025 and 1948 are like apples to oranges, McMahon said. Its much like saying the 2016 Ford Focus has the best headroom since the 1946 Ford Tudor  the two tax codes and the household situations to which they apply are that different, McMahon said. Hewrote recentlythe new rates will be the largest tax cut since the mid-1990s, when lawmakers passed the Taxpayer Relief Act. At the time, the legislation dropped taxes to the lowest rates since 1954. The new tax rates, once fully phased in, will be even lower, according to the Department of Taxation and Finance data. An analysis from the Fiscal Policy Institute confirms Cuomos claim holds true - but like McMahon, the institute points out the income range that defines the middle class looks different today than it did 70 years ago. The 1958 exception The Department of Taxation and Finance, in adifferent report, reveals another interesting historical nugget. Employers were not required by law to withhold tax until 1959. According to the document, because this would have required two years of taxes to be paid in just one year, taxes were canceled for 1958 - meaning the tax rate for that year was zero. Our ruling Governor Andrew M. Cuomo claimed new tax rates passed by lawmakers during this yearsstate budget processare the lowest in the state in 70 years. Data from the Department of Taxation and Finance backs up his claim. Because of an unusual set of circumstances, there was no income tax rate in 1958 as the state implemented a new system. The first year rates will appear lower than the 1948 rates will be in 2019. We rate this claim as Mostly True. When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. An image purportedly showing a screenshot from a Russian state TV news program featuring eight Republican U.S. senators -- Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-TX), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and John Thune (R-SD) -- made its way online in January 2019, along with the claim that the pictured American lawmakers were being "honored" or "thanked" for lifting sanctions against three companies controlled by Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska:   This image has been posted to social media accompanied by a variety of descriptive captions: posted social media This image is a genuine screenshot from the news program "60 " (60 Minutes) aired on Channel 1 Russia on 17 January 2019. The graphic featuring the 8 GOP lawmakers originally appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show (the MSNBC logo is visible in the bottom right hand corner of the graphic) the day prior during a segment concerning the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed on three companies controlled by oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska. sanctions The graphic appears at the 9:30 mark of the following video, while a transcription from Maddow's report on these sanctions appears below the video: transcription  Shortly before Christmas, the Trump administration quietly released plans to lift U.S. government sanctions on companies connected to Deripaska. Deripaska is sanctioned because of the U.S. -- because of the Russian government interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016. Now, the sanctions on Deripaska's companies are consequential. The companies linked to Deripaska happen to be huge companies. So, even if you set aside the sanctions' effects on Deripaska personally, unsanctioning these huge Russian companies will also be really substantially economically beneficial to the Russian economy as a whole. Under American law governing sanctions like this, Congress has 30 days to review any decision by the administration to lift these kinds of sanctions. Within that 30-day window, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer brought forward legislation to in fact challenge that decision by the Trump administration, to block the lifting of the Deripaska-related sanctions. As we reported last night, every Democrat in the Senate chamber voted with Schumer on this, as did 11 Republican senators, a heterogeneous bunch of Republican senators, who broke ranks with Mitch McConnell and sided with the Democrats to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. That's a big number of Republican senators breaking ranks, especially after the Trump administration lobbied the Senate and the House really aggressively on this issue. Well, today, this afternoon, despite those 11 Republican senators breaking ranks and being willing to side with the Democrats on this, it turned out to be not enough because today there was a crucial vote on this matter which came with not a 50-vote threshold, but a 60-vote threshold to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. Schumer and the Democrats and the breakaway Republicans were able to put together 57 votes, but 57 isn't 60, and so you can thank top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell. You can thank all of these other Republican senators who get all of this public credit for supposedly being so hawkish and so realistic on Russia. You can thank them all for voting today to give Vladimir Putin's government in Russia a huge big economic present and voting to give Oleg Deripaska the biggest break of his life, even while his potential role in the Russian attack on our election remains a critical matter that is under ongoing investigation related to multiple criminal cases. Julia Davis, an investigative journalist and Russian media analyst, was one of the first to notice Maddow's graphic being featured on Russian State TV. Davis shared this screenshot on Twitter along with a brief message explaining its context. Twitter Davis wrote: "#Russia's state TV reports that for the first time since 2014, the US is lifting sanctions from Russian companies [#Deripaska's Rusal et al.] The host laughs out loud about the Democrats not getting enough votes to block the effort, expresses hope that this is just the beginning." We've included the relevant segment below from the "60 " broadcast, which starts around the 31-second mark (00:31) below: A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin."  A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin." MSNBC.  "Transcript: 1/16/19, The Rachel Maddow Show."
  16 January 2019. Vogel, Kenneth.  "Democrats Fall Short in Russia Sanctions Vote."
  The New York Times.  16 January 2019. A supporter of an Austin mayoral candidate declared that another candidate accepts corporate donations--which would be illegal, he did not add. In a July 29, 2014, Facebook post, Eugene Sepulveda of Austin, treasurer for attorney Steve Adlers mayoral campaign, declared Adler isnt taking corp money, PAC money or bundled contributions, meaning money gathered from multiple sources by a single person. Commenting below Sepulvedas post, Austin political consultant Mark Littlefield, who supports City Council member Mike Martinez for mayor, asked: Are other candidates taking corporate money? Sepulveda replied: Mike Martinez takes corporate money. Steve wont. A Martinez backer, Jose Velasquez, asked us to check Sepulvedas claim. We wondered first if perhaps laws have changed dramatically so that Texas candidates may accept corporate donations. Not so, we were reminded, in that Texas adopted its ban on corporate donations to candidates more than a century ago. A September 2013 Texas Ethics Commissionguide for candidates for local officespecified that state law bars contributions to candidates for state and local office from labor unions and most corporations. More recently, Austin lawyer Tim Sorrells, the commissions former general counsel, advised candidates for city office in an April 2, 2014,blog post: In Texas, it is still a felony of the third degree for a corporation or labor organization to contribute directly to a candidate or a candidate committee. We asked Sepulveda, a social entreprenuer and philanthropist, to elaborate on his Facebook statement. By email, he told us: I should have said Mike was taking money from business entities. I was referring to his acceptance of contributions from LLCs as well as PACs and bundlers. LLCs are Limited Liability Companies. My bad for not being more specific, Sepulveda wrote. In another email, he said that when Velasquez asked him about the corporate claim, I used the term corporate generically, even referring him to the documents filed with the city clerk. If I'd been trying to mislead anyone, I certainly wouldn't have pointed them to the candidate-filed reports. Sepulveda, who said he made his Facebook comments as an Adler supporter and not as a spokesman for Adlers campaign, elaborated that according to a campaign-finance filing, Martinez fielded contributions from 13 businesses, which we confirmed from Martinezs July 15, 2014,campaign finance report, which showed the cited contributions ranging from $50 to $350. We noticed the business contributors included several limited liability companies, which prompted us to ask an election-law expert,Trey Trainorof Austin, if such companies can legally give to candidates for local office. By phone, Trainor said LLCs may legally make donations so long as none of their members are corporations. Also by phone, Austin lawyer Ed Shack, who said he has helped Adlers campaign, said the same. Martinez campaign spokesman Nick Hudson told us the campaign earlier confirmed from state records and by contacting each contributor that none of the LLCs giving to Martinezs effort had corporate members. Hudson agreed it would be illegal for Martinez to accept corporate donations. Meanwhile, Sepulveda replied to us that he had since posted a comment on Facebook, below his original claim, stating he should have said Martinez accepted donations from business entities including LLCs rather than corporations. It appeared the afternoon of Aug. 4, 2014. Our ruling Sepulveda said on Facebook that Martinez takes corporate donations. Thats not so. In fact, corporate donations remain forbidden and accepting such could lead to a felony charge. However, any candidate may field contributions from PACs and LLCs (so long as a donor LLC has no corporate members). This advocates claim, which he clarified on Facebook six days later, shakes out as incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. High-speed rail has wedged itself into the 2018 campaign for California governor, splitting the current top two Democrats in the race. Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosarecently claimed Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsomthe frontrunner in the racehas essentially flip-flopped in his support for the states controversial and costly rail project. Heres what Villaraigosa told theSacramento Beeon Sept. 20, 2017: Newsom was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. He added that Newsom was revising his positions when the winds blow in his direction. Given the key decisions Californias next governor will need to make on high-speed rail, we wanted to know whether Newsom has really shifted this much in his support for the massive project. We hopped aboard for a fact-check. Background on the bullet train In 2008, California voters approved a nearly $10 billion bond to jump-start the development of a high-speed rail network. Plans called for trains to zip across the state at 200 miles per hour, initially connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles and eventually extending the system to Sacramento and San Diego. Cost estimates for the project, however, have see-sawed from an initial $33 billion to $98 billion to $64 billion. The project has also fallen far behind schedule with construction limited to a small segment in the Central Valley. We asked Villaraigosas campaign for evidence of Newsoms shifting positions. As examples of his initial support, it pointed to news articles showing Newsom backing the 2008 bond measure. The campaign then cited a2014 radio interviewthat it says proves Newsom opposed the project. Finally, it cited articles from October 2016 in which the lieutenant governor again pledged his support. We absolutely need this, Newsom said of high-speed rail in a2007Mercury-Newsarticle. In February 2014, however, Newsom was asked by conservative radio host Ben Shapiro:Are you pro or against the train, especially now that the California public, which approved the train in the first place, has reneged and no longer likes the train? Newsom responded:I think Im where the public was and is. Apoll in September 2013found 52 percent of Californians wanted the rail project stopped and 51 percent felt it was a waste of money. Newsom went on to tell Shapiro:We dont have the federal dollars we were hoping for ... the private sector hasnt stepped up. Shapiro then asked:If you had your druthers, Gavin, would you kill the thing? Newsom responded:I would take the dollars and redirect it to other, more pressing infrastructure needs. I am not the only Democrat that feels this way. I gotta tell you, I am one of the few that just said it publicly. Most are now saying it privately. This exchange gave many the impression Newsom had backed away from the project. Newsom did not clarify in the interview what kind of funds should be redirected. In October 2016, Newsom told the Sacramento Press Club that he would 100 percent seek a solid funding source for the train project if he's elected governor in 2018. TheAssociated Presstook that to mean he again supported the project. AMarch 2017 pollfound Californians remain divided over high-speed rail, with 48 percent favoring the project and 46 percent opposed. The survey added that 66 percent say they would favor high-speed rail if it cost less than the current estimate of $64 billion over the next 20 years. In this Feb. 26, 2016, file photo, the supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River are seen under construction near Madera, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Newsoms response Dan Newman, Newsoms campaign spokesman, described Villaraigosas claim about shifting positions this way: The statement is extremely misleading at best, he said in an email. Villaraigosa is simply trying to score political points with a disingenuous cheap shot, by blithely ignoring the fact that the project being discussed today is significantly different than what voters supported in 2008. The spokesman said Newsom has never opposed high-speed rail. Instead, Newsom publicly scrutinized the projects business plan when cost estimates ballooned to nearly $100 billion and questioned Gov. Jerry Browns plans to use cap and trade funds for it, the spokesman said. Scrutinizing the business plan is very different from opposing (high-speed rail), Newman added. He said Newsoms comment in the 2014 radio interview about redirecting money away from the project was referring to redirecting cap and trade money away from it, not the state bond money passed by voters. He said a statement from Newsoms office in March 2014 clarifies Newsoms consistent support even as he questioned the projects finances: The lieutenant governor has long supported high speed rail and still does, but this project in its current form gives him pause, Newsoms spokeswoman Andrea Koskey, told Buzzfeed News for anarticleon March 27, 2014. He added that Newsoms statements of support in more recent years are also consistent with previous comments. Experts we spoke with were split on the claim. Sacramento State Political Science ProfessorWesley Husseysaid Villaraigosas claim about Newsom vacillating on the project isnt right. I don't think it's a fair assessment, the professor said in an email.Newsom came out several years ago with serious doubts about the high speed rail, but I don't think he's ever said definitely he would stop the program if he became governor. Maybe he fluctuates from lukewarm to a soft no, but that's not the same as consistently changing his opinion. Key to our assessment, however, was the 2014 radio interview and Newsoms own admission that he agreed with the growing public sentiment that opposed the train at that time. We spoke with one more expert. Lou Thompson is chairman of theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an independent oversight group that issues reports to the Legislature on the project. He declined to comment about whether he believed Newsom had definitely switched his stance on high speed rail. Thompson said, however, that redirecting cap and trade money away from the project in 2014, as Newsom suggested doing, would have made the projects future a lot more difficult. Asked whether such a move would have effectively killed the project, Thompson said: I dont know what other source of money they would have found. He described cap and trade money as the key revenue source for the project both then and now, given the restrictions on other sources, including the bond funds. Our rating Villaraigosa claimed Newsom has essentially flip-flopped in his support for Californias high-speed rail, saying he was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. Villaraigosas campaign cited articles showing Newsom strongly backed the project a decade ago. It also pointed to aradio interview in 2014in which Newsom admitted that he shared the publics growing opposition to high-speed rail. He also suggested redirecting funds away from the project, a move that the head of the projects oversight panel said would have made building high-speed rail a lot more difficult. A spokesman for Newsoms campaign defended the candidates stance, saying Newsom has scrutinized project costs as they have soared beyond initial estimates. He said, however, that Newsom has never turned his back on high-speed rail. We found Villaraigosa pointed to key evidence, particularly the 2014 radio interview, that shows Newsoms stance had shifted, at least for that moment in time. In fairness to Newsom, hes consistently expressed concern that the project no longer represents what voters supported in 2008 and that his main worry was its cost. Villaraigosas statement could have used this additional information. We rate his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2).