Today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago.
The newly installed House speaker, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., recently took toMediumto set the stage for a forum in Columbia, S.C., on Republican efforts to fight poverty. The forum, hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation,drew six 2016 Republican presidential candidates former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, retired physician Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. In his Medium column, Ryan wrote that a new direction was needed on government anti-poverty efforts. Weve been fighting the War on Poverty for 50 years now, he wrote. And I dont think you can call it anything but a stalemate. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars. And yet today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. Im not saying we havent made progress. We have. But today we have a safety net that catches people falling into poverty. What we need is a safety net that lifts people out of poverty that helps them earn a good paycheck so they can support themselves. Here, well check Ryans statement that today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. When we asked Ryans staff for their evidence, they pointed us to an academic paper by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez and Nicholas Turner, Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility from January 2014. Chetty and Hendren are at Harvard, Kline and Saez are at the University of California-Berkeley, and Turner was with the U.S. Treasury Department. The paper, based on extensive analysis of income and educational-attainment data, found that intergenerational mobility has remained extremely stable since the generation of Americans born in 1971. We find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s, the authors wrote. When we asked one of the co-authors, Saez, whether Ryans summary left out anything important, he said no. Yes, this is broadly correct, Saez told PolitiFact. Saez said the paper shows the odds of staying in the bottom one-fifth of the income distribution when your parents were in the bottom one-fifth have stayed stable for the past four to five decades. The paper and Saez in the interview both noted one caveat  that the consequences of the pattern Ryan is citing have worse effects today because inequality has grown over the same period. Because inequality has risen, the paper notes, the consequences of the birth lottery  the parents to whom a child is born  are larger today than in the past. However, this caveat doesnt undermine Ryans point. If anything, it accentuates it. (We're also not penalizing Ryan for rounding up the study's length to 50 years.) Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist and chief economist at the jobs site Indeed, said the paper Ryan chose is a credible one within the profession. These are the authors I would turn to when looking at intergenerational mobility. Our ruling Ryan wrote that today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. His support for this claim  a respected academic paper published in 2014  found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.
In May 2014 Facebook announced they would be rolling out an "Identify TV and Music" feature that would allow users who access the social media platform through their cell phones to identify and tag music or television programs playing in their area. When a user begins to compose a status update, Facebook will activate the phone's microphone, filter out live conversations, and try to detect and identify audio programming. If a matching song is found, Facebook will include a sample of the music in the status; if a matching television program is found, Facebook will label the specific season and episode "so you can avoid any spoilers": announced When writing a status update  if you choose to turn the feature on  you'll have the option to use your phone's microphone to identify what song is playing or what show or movie is on TV. That means if you want to share that you're listening to your favorite Beyonc track or watching the season premiere of Game of Thrones, you can do it quickly and easily, without typing. If you share music, your friends can see a 30-second preview of the song. For TV shows, the story in News Feed will highlight the specific season and episode youre watching, so you can avoid any spoilers and join in conversations with your friends after you've caught up. Facebook said the digital fingerprinting feature would be opt-in only, meaning users would have to give the program permission to start. Once activated, an icon on the face of the phone would indicate that the microphone was active and the phone was listening. Users who opted in could still choose to turn off the feature on a post-by-post basis. (Audio fingerprinting would only be available in the United States and only via iOS and Android mobile apps; it would not function if Facebook were accessed through a browser.)   Facebook's announcement was later updated to address rumors that the new app would listen in on, and store, user conversations: Myth: The feature listens to and stores your conversations. Fact: Nope, no matter how interesting your conversation, this feature does not store sound or recordings. Facebook isn't listening to or storing your conversations. Here's how it works: if you choose to turn the feature on, when you write a status update, the app converts any sound into an audio fingerprint on your phone. This fingerprint is sent to our servers to try and match it against our database of audio and TV fingerprints. By design, we do not store fingerprints from your device for any amount of time. And in any event, the fingerprints can't be reversed into the original audio because they don't contain enough information. Myth: Facebook is always listening using your microphone. Fact: Nope, if you choose to turn this feature on, it will only use your microphone (for 15 seconds) when you're actually writing a status update to try and match music and TV. Two years later, a similar rumor erupted, holding that Facebook was listening to user conversations in order to better target advertising and content to them. rumor  Griffin, Andrew.  "Facebook Is Using Smartphones To Listen To What People Say, Professor Suggests."
  The Independent.  31May 2016. Hill, Kashmir.  "Facebook Wants To Listen in on What You're Doing."
  Forbes.  22 May 2014. Kleinman, Zoe.  "Facebook 'Listening' Claim Denied By Professor"
  BBC.  3June2016. Tate, Ryan.  "Facebook Will Soon Detect What You're Watching and Listening To."
  Wired.  21 May 2014. Tate, Ryan.  "Why Facebook Spent a Year Learning to Listen in on Your TV Shows."
  Wired.  22 May 2014. Facebook Newsroom.  "Facebook Does Not Use Your Phones Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories."
  2 June 2016. In February 2020, as fears surrounding the outbreak of a new coronavirus and a potential pandemic triggered the worst one-day drop in U.S. stocks since 2011, a chart began circulating via social media purportedly showing the "8 Largest Dow Jones Drops in American History." one-day drop What was notable about the chart was that all of the listed stock market drops had supposedly occurred during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump:  The chart was accurate as far as it went, replicating information from the Wikipedia "List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average" page about the greatest single-day drops in the Dow: page  However, this chart only displayed net (or absolute) losses in the Dow, and obviously a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at 25,000 is far less severe than a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at only 5,000. As we detailed in another article, a chart of the largest single-day percentage (or relative) changes in the Dow shows that none of the top 10 single-day percentage drops in that stock index has occurred during the Trump administration: article Biggest one-day percentage stock index losses  (Sources: The Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data The largest single-day percentage drop in the Dow took place on Oct. 19, 1987  a day commonly known as Black Monday  when the Dow fell 508 points for a loss of 22.6% of its value. Black Monday Wikipedia.  "List of Largest Daily Changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Wikipedia.  "Black Monday (1987)."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Associated Press.  "Virus Anxiety Triggers Biggest 1-Day Market Drop Since 2011."
  Snopes.com.  28 February 2020. MacGuill, Dan.  "Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?"
  Snopes.com.  8 February 2018. Claim:  Text reproduces an open letter to Americans from Russian president Vladimir Putin. INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2013] A letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the American people has been circulating around the internet for the past couple of days. In the letter, Putin re-introduces Americans to some unpleasant facts about history and life theyd rather forget, such as Nixons reasoning behind massive carpet bombing of millions or North Vietnamese for the purpose of 'looking good' while exiting the war, and how Pakistan has been using the U.S. as a 'false ally' to gain foreign aid, while using the funds to embolden the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls out Barrack Hussein Obama for having the audacity to meet with gay rights activists while he is in Russia next week, a group Putin despises, while refusing to carve away time to meet with him and solve the Syria issue. He compares the action to the equivalent of him (Putin) coming to the U.S. and meeting with Obamas domestic enemy, the N.R.A.  How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.  You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but hes my son-of-a-bitch. So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, "We will give you nothing," well, why would I ever agree to that? That's not negotiation, that's dictation; it's a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore. [Remainder of the letter can be viewed here.] here Origins:  This "open letter" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans, putatively expressing that politician's viewpoints on U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war and other international matters, was published on breitbart.com on 3 September 2013 under the  breitbart.com title "LETS JOIN ONE ANOTHER TO CRUSH THE UNHOLY, UNRULY, JIHADI MUSLIMS" and attributed to Vladimir Putin.  Many readers who encountered this item on that site (and elsewhere) mistook its attribution and first person tone as an indication that the piece was actually written by President Putin himself.   Even though this item may have been cast in the first person and mockingly bylined as something penned by "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin," it's not an actual open letter to Americans written by the Russian president.  It's a political opinion piece that uses a "literary ventriloquism" device through which an author expresses his viewpoint by putting his words into someone else's mouth  highlighting what the writer wants the audience to understand by presenting the author's words as another person's, as if the audience were "inside the mind of" that other person. Coincidentally, nine days later the New York Times published a (much more temperate) op-ed piece about U.S. military intervention in Syria which was also bylined with Vladimir Putin's name.  According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, the editorial had been offered to the Times by the public relations firm Ketchum (which works on behalf of Russian interests), and the idea for the article and its basic content did indeed come from President Putin, with some of his assistants crafting the final text.  op-ed Last updated:  12 September 2013 In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes.  Joe Biden  This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny.  remarks Biden delivered Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe: Fox News reported President Biden reiterated his pledge that no American earning less than $400,000 would not pay "a single penny" in additional taxes with a slight twist on Monday, after he proposed several tax increases to fund two sweeping spending plans. Biden appeared to mistakenly leave out a key word during his speech at Tidewater Community College  instead saying that no one earning under his specified threshold would pay any taxes. Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes."  repeatedly promised 2020 presidential campaign   This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021: released in April 2021 In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years. It consists of about $1 trillion in investments and $800 billion in tax cuts for American families and workers. Alongside the American Families Plan, the President will be proposing a set of measures to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their share in taxes, while ensuring that no one making $400,000 per year or less will see their taxes go up. When combined with President Bidens American Jobs Plan, this legislation will be fully paid for over 15 years, and will reduce deficits over the long term. Biden has repeatedly promised that people making less than $400,000 would not see their taxes raised under his plan. Although a video that showed him saying that people making less than a $400,000 won't "pay a single penny in taxes" is real, the president clearly misspoke during this portion of his speech. As a new year and a new legislative session begin, Wisconsin Republicans are looking to place limits on government benefits to residents. That issue will appear on the ballot for the April election, as lawmakersvoted last monthto include an advisory referendum asking voters whether people should be required to look for work to receive welfare benefits. It also arose on the Assembly floor Jan. 19, in a speech from Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, about BadgerCare,the states health care coverage programfor low-income people and people with disabilities. Heres his full quote: Wisconsin has been a national leader in so many ways. Preliminary data shows that we have more people on BadgerCare today than we did before the pandemic. Why? Because we dont even ask people what their income level is to qualify for free health insurance from the government. So, on Day One, you qualify. On Day Two, you win the lottery. Youre a multimillionaire. You still get the benefits from the state. How is that right? Its not. There are a couple of claims in there  one being that Wisconsin has more people on BadgerCare today than before the pandemic, which we noted ina prior fact-check is correct. But what about his other claim  that you could be a multimillionaire and still get BadgerCare benefits? Is he right about that, too? Lets take a look. One important point that Vos statement doesnt quite make clear: There is always an initial check of peoples incomes to make sure they fit within the programs requirements before they can enroll in BadgerCare. Proof of income has always been required, Elizabeth Goodsitt, a state Department of Health Services spokesperson, said in an email. A spokesperson for Vos said the speakers phrasing, Day One, you qualify, referred to that first check. Fair enough. So what if the next day, a person gets a large influx of money and moves above the programs income limits? What happens next changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, people were required to report an income change that could disqualify them from receiving benefits, and there were other external checks to ensure their incomes remained below that threshold. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, federal lawmakers passed theFamilies First Coronavirus Response Act. Among other things, it increased the number of federal dollars that states could be reimbursed for their Medicaid programs. To get that increase, though, states had toagree to keep people continuously enrolledin Medicaid coverage until the end of the public health emergency. The idea was to promote stable health care coverage during the pandemic. In other words, if people enrolled in BadgerCare in 2020, theyd have had coverage for the last almost three years without needing to renew it, even if their income changed. In a spending plan passed late last year, Congressset an end date for the continuous enrollment provision: March 31, 2023. After that date, Wisconsin and other states can start disenrolling people who no longer meet the requirements for that coverage. The law allows states a full year to complete that step and process renewals for those who will keep their coverage. This will surely take a while, with anestimated increase of almost 20 million people enrolledin Medicaid nationwide since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Goodsitt said all members of BadgerCare will have their eligibility rechecked between June of this year and May 2024. Vos sidestepped that in his claim, suggesting its been a longstanding preferred practice of state policy. Still, since those eligibility checks are at least a few months away, a situation like Vos laid out is plausible at the moment. Vos argued that even a multimillionaire could receive BadgerCare benefits in Wisconsin, because, We dont even ask people what their income level is to qualify for free health care. But there is an initial income check to qualify for coverage. After that, starting on Day Two, a federal law passed during the pandemic prevents states from rechecking eligibility based on income  though that will end this spring. So, the overnight millionaire scenario Vos describes could theoretically happen  and individuals, because of a new job or other more modest income gains, could rise above the threshold. But Vos skirts past this not being something the state initiated, nor something the state can avoid. And it will end soon. We rate a statement Mostly True if it is accurate, but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego invoked pickup trucks to frame his case for making it easier for college students and young graduates to refinance student loans. The average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000, the Texas Democrat wrote in a May 14, 2014, email blast. That also happens to be the cost of an average size pickup truck! But heres whats truly alarming: students are NOT allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates -- the same way car owners can, Gallego wrote. Democratic-sponsored legislationwould provide federal aid so students and graduates stuck with high interest rates could repay the loans at the lower rates Congress approved for new student loans in 2013, though a May 16, 2014 National Journalnews storycalled the proposal a long shot in the Senate, where Republicans were described as likely to resist higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for the refinancing wrinkle. Gallegos revved our curiosity thrice over. Average student loan debt By email, Gallegos campaign manager, Anthony Gutierrez told us the congressmans average student-loan debt figure came from anews storyposted online May 8, 2014, on the GovBeat blog ofThe Washington Post. That story said more than a million Americans would graduate this year with substantial student loan debt, a conclusion it attributed to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The graduates will have an average of $26,500 in student loans, thePoststory said, joining the tens of millions of other adults who collectively hold more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. That burden is largest, on average, in many Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, a few Southeastern states and California. An accompanying U.S. map shows more than 20 states including Texas where the average student loan debt is $22,000 to $25,000  ThePostcredited these conclusions to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, using data from the third quarter of 2012. We ventured to a web page for the reserve bank where its entry on student loan debt led us to aresearch paper, published in 2012 and revised in April 2013, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. According to the revised paper, student loan debt increased dramatically over the last several years, from about $346 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 to $996 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, a surge of nearly 14 percent a year. By comparison, the report said, total credit card debt was $679 billion and auto debt was $783 billion. Then again, the report states, increasing levels of debt were driven largely by growth in the number of borrowers, rather than growth in average debt levels of borrowers. The report said that in the fourth quarter of 2012--a few months after the period analyzed in thePosts chart--the median borrower holding student loan debt owed $13,924 in student loan debt. The average amount of student loan debt across all consumers with student loan debt was $24,699. Thats the latest available calculation, Bill Medley, spokesman for the Kansas City Fed, told us by email. Pricing average pickup trucks Next, did Gallego capture the price of an average-size pickup? Gutierrez told us the campaign researched average used truck prices on the Cars Direct website. He pointed us to an April 5, 2012,articleon the site showing suggested retail prices for five 2010 and 2007 models. These prices are for a base model pickup truck with standard options and no additional accessories, the article said. According to the story, the average manufacturers suggested retail price for a 2010 two-door Ford F-150 was $22,355 and the average for a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 was $21,510--prices close to the $22,000-plus cited by Gallego. Then again, the Cars Direct article listed estimated prices for two 2010 models at less than $22,000. It also listed the price for another 2010 truck as nearly $6,000 higher. But Gallego priced used pickups; we looked on Edmunds.com, which compiles car and truck prices, for manufacturers suggested retail prices for model-year 2013 and 2014 pickups.According to the site, the price for a basic Ford F-150 regular cab starts at $24,070 (2013 model) and $24,735 (2014). A Toyota Tacoma regular cab starts at $17,625 (2013) and $18,125 (2014),the sitesays. Limits on refinancing student loans? Finally, are students really not allowed to refinance college loans? Gutierrez pointed out news articles including a Feb. 20, 2013,Time magazine piecestating that unlike other consumers who have taken advantage of reduced interest rates to refinance purchases, student borrowers have been restricted because Congressnot the free marketsets the interest rate on the vast majority of student debt, and because these loans are not secured by collateral private lenders are loath to undercut the federal governments terms. The Time story noted that student loan debt was at $1 trillionand of that, the federal government backed $864 billion. Also, most of the debt was being carried at an interest rate higher than 6 percent, a figure Time attributed to a Feb. 13, 2013,reportfrom the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Thats almost twice the rate of an average 30-year mortgage, Time said. By telephone,Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, said that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders, though she said this would only happen in cases of substantial income. (Car owners, in contrast, have four-wheeled collateral.) By email, Jarvis said refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Also by phone,Brian Stewartof the Center for American Progress -- which has urged the Democratic-backed action -- said its possible but difficult to refinance student loans with private lenders while there's no way for students to get the federal government to refinance a government-backed loan. Stewart, a spokesman for Generation Progress, a center project focused on young adults, said the center has been researching student-loan issues for about two years. Our ruling Gallego said the average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000...the cost of an average size pickup truck. But unlike car owners, he said, students are not allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates. This claim reflects the latest estimate of average student-loan debt and a findable price for an average-size pickup. Its also so that most college loans are federally backed and Uncle Sam doesnt offer a way for students and graduates to refinance. On the other hand, students taking loans from banks or other private lenders arent prevented from refinancing; this claim lacks that clarification. We rate this statement as 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. An image supposedly showing a large moon sitting perfectly in the middle of a stone arch formation is frequently circulated on social media under the title "The Eye of the Moon in Utah."  The Eye of the Moon in Utah     This isn't a genuine photograph, in the sense that this scene was not visible with the naked eye. However, this isn't a digitally altered image, either. The original picture was taken by photographer Zach Cooley by using an in-camera double exposure technique. In short, Cooley snapped a photograph, then snapped a second photograph, and layered the images on top of one another. (By labeling it "Misleading," we don't mean to accuse Cooley of misrepresentation. Rather, it's to point out that in many cases the image has been shared on social media with no explanation of how it was constructed.) Zach Cooley Masterclass explains: explains Double exposure photography is a technique that layers two different exposures on a single image, combining two photographs into one. Double exposure creates a surreal feeling for your photos and the two photographs can work together to convey deep meaning or symbolism. A similar technique, called a multiple exposure, is when you combine more than two exposures in a single image Cooley provided some of the technical details behind this image in their Instagram post. They wrote that they traveled to Utah in October as the moon was aligning with this arch, that they used an in-camera double exposure to create this image, and that the two images used were taken about a minute apart. Compared to what was seen with the naked eye, the moon is enlarged and centered. Instagram post Here's the original Instagram post:   Cooley writes: Happy Halloween weekend! I planned an entire vacation mostly around the fact that the moonrise would align with this arch and I could get something resembling a spooky eye on the week of Halloween. Over two nights I got some single shots and double exposures, I thought this one was best for the eye look, what do you think? Can't wait to share more with you all!In-camera double exposureMoon: ?550mm?F/9?1/160sec.?ISO 160Arch: ?250mm?F/9?1/5 sec.?ISO 160 Notes: Photos taken about a minute apart and moon was enlarged and repositioned in the process.  While the "Eye of the Moon in Utah" photograph gives a slightly distorted view of what you would see if you were standing next to the photographer, it isn't that far off from reality. Here's a single-exposure photograph from Cooley that shows a very similar scene:    Cooley elaborated on this in-camera double exposure technique in another Instagram post that showed a large moon over Phoenix, Arizona, writing: Double exposure effects are often achieved in Photoshop or a similar program by importing and manipulating 2 different photos. However, many digital cameras today allow you to merge multiple photos at the time you take them, but of course with none of the flexibility you get with editing software. For this image for example, I captured the city in one shot, then zoomed in and positioned the moon where I wanted it to overlay, and when I snapped that second photo the camera merged it with the first since it was in double exposure mode. Zooming in for the moon photo makes it appear larger in comparison to the city than it did in real life (4X larger in this case). This all may sound easy, but a lot of things have to be just right for this to work out.Ive mentioned this before, but to be clear, I have zero issues with Photoshop - its a pretty cool tool that opens doors to infinite creativity, among other things. I'm personally just in a place where I have yet to learn how to do things like this in Photoshop, and I'm enjoying trying different things with my camera. Ive been hesitant to post this, probably most of all because I take pride in a lot of single exposure moon photos Ive taken, and I fear mixing in images like this could lead people to believe those single exposures are more of the same. Like Ive said though, I will always specify in the caption. At the end of the day, Im proud of this image too and happy to share creative work without walls, even if its not purist photography. Im definitely wanting feedback on all this, from photographers and not photographers alike, so please let me know what you think! And thanks for reading my book. ?? Here's the moon over Phoenix image: How President-elect Donald Trump will handle his extensive businesses and financial holdings  and the potential conflict of interest that comes with them  when he gets into the Oval Office remains an open question. Trump has said his children will manage his business dealings. Many presidents in the past have put their assets in ablind trust, which is when an independent trustee manages another persons assets without the persons input. But Trump doesnt actually have to do any of this because the financial conflict-of-interest laws dont apply to him as president, said former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is reportedly on the short list for a seat on Trumps cabinet. Well, first of all, you realize that those laws don't apply to the president, right? Giuliani toldCNNs Jake Tapper Nov. 13. So, the president doesn't have to have a blind trust. For some reason, when the law was written, the president was exempt. Giuliani has the law pretty much right. Trump, as president, has no legal obligation to detach himself from his businesses and financial interests. The law at issue isTitle 18 Section 208of the U.S. code. Itsaysfederal executive branch employees cant participate in government matters in which they or their immediate family has a financial interest. Because of this law, some federal employees put their investments in a blind trust. This allows them to sidestep the regulation and participate in a matter that might otherwise pose a conflict of interest. But the president and the vice president, despite being executive branch employees, are exempt. According tothe laws definitions, Title 18 Section 208 does not apply to them, nor does it apply to members of Congress or federal judges. It appears that presidents have mostly escaped the normal web of ethics and conflict-of-interest laws, said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government accountability watchdog. Amey added that presidents are allowed to accept gifts in many cases, too. Its been this way since at least 1974, when theJustice Department issued a lettersaying Title 18 Section 208 did not apply to the president. Congress expressly codified the exemptions in 1989. In the 1974 letter, the Justice Department said the legislative history of this conflict-of-interest provision indicated that it was never intended to apply to the president. Additionally, the Justice Department said placing conflict-of-interest laws on the president could constrain him in a potentially unconstitutional manner, though it did not give specific examples. As the head of the executive branch, the president may not be able to  and arguably under the Constitution it might not be possible to require the president to  recuse from government decisions, said Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School. While Title 18 Section 208 is the primary conflict-of-interest provision, there are other relevant rules, including a couple that dont exempt the president. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will have to disclose their finances, which is required of all high-level federal employees, Briffault said. But the disclosures are not as detailed as federal tax returns, which Trump has not released. Then theres the Constitutions Emoluments Clause, which bans U.S. government employees from accepting presents or compensation from foreign governments, noted Kathleen Clark, an expert on legal ethics and a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. The Trump Organization has numerous foreign ties, includingseveral overseasreal estate deals with possible foreign government connections.In 2012, for example, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for Trump Towers Mall in Istanbul. If any of Trumps business arrangements involve the receipt of payments from foreign governments, I believe that he, or his entities from which he receives money, would have to forgo those payments, or he would have to detach from those entities, Clark said. But it's not fully clear that presidents are bound by the Emoluments Clause, and no court has weighed into answer this question. The way the clause is constructred   that it doesn't specify the president, unlike other provisions in the Constitution, for example  and the fact that President George Washington himself took gifts from the French government without asking Congress for permission, together make a good case that it doesn't apply to presidents, saidSeth Barrett Tillman, a professor at Maynooth University in Ireland who has studied the clause. Our ruling Giuliani said financial conflict-of-interest laws don't apply to the president, right? So, the president doesn't have to have a blind trust. The president is, in fact, exempt from the primary conflict-of-interest provision in the U.S. code. So presidents do not have any legal obligation to put their financial holdings in a blind trust or to detach themselves from their financial interests in any way. As president, Trump will have to comply with financial disclosure requirements, however, and it's possible he is constrained by a clause in the Constitution regarding income from foreign governments. We rate Giulianis claim True. Update Jan. 12, 2017: We have updated this story to add more information about the Emoluments Clause. Our rating remains unchanged. Editor's note: Fact-checking whether Trump tweeted about 'Dow Joans' and presidents being shot out of a cannon? That's over here. here Between 10 and 11 October 2018, the Dow Jones Industrial Index dropped 1,378 points in value. Along with significant losses in other market indices (such as the S&P 500), this decline prompted sober and informed analysis, but also partisan criticism of President Donald Trump, who has set a precedent of claiming credit for positive stock market trends.  analysis claiming credit Against that background, critics of the president shared what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet from 2012 in which Trump supposedly proclaimed, "If the Dow drops 1,000 points in two days the President should be impeached immediately!" RETWEET AND LIKE TO SPREAD THIS OLD TRUMP TWEET! pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 11, 2018 October 11, 2018 Since the Dow Jones had indeed dropped by more than 1,000 points in two days (the argument went), President Trump, in accordance with his own pronouncement, ought to be removed from office, or even resign. This was advocated with great gusto on Twitter in the aftermath of the October 2018 loss: The Dow has dropped 1,377 points in the last two days. Oh @realDonaldTrump, your self from six years ago would like a word with you. Alternatively, you could save us all a lot of time and money and just resign immediately. pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR  Stephen Schwartz (@AtomicAnalyst) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 Sooo, @realDonaldTrump..... @realDonaldTrump For a 2-day trump slump of minus-1,300 to the Dow, by your "logic" you should be impeached immediately AND thrown in jail! #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD  BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 @realDonaldTrump impeach Trump .. Dow is down 1,300 points https://t.co/31MNdEkePB @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/31MNdEkePB  alex taye (@ChakluTaye) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 But there is no record of Trump having posted such a tweet on 6 November 2012, or on any other date. Since it's conceivable that he published it then deleted it, we can't reach a definitive conclusion as to whether or not it is genuine. However, there are good reasons to doubt its authenticity. no record Firstly, it is strikingly similar to another tweet which was revealed to have been a hoax in February 2018, after another massive loss for the Dow Jones. On that occasion, Shaun Usher -- who runs the popular "Letters of Note" blog -- admitted to having fabricated an "old Trump tweet" from 2015, in which the presidential candidate was supposed to have proclaimed:  hoax loss If the Dow Joans [sic] ever falls more than 1000 "points" in a Single Day the sitting president should be "loaded" into a very big cannon and Shot into the sun at TREMENDOUS SPEED! No excuses!    Secondly, there is no record of the 2012 tweet existing before 11 October 2018. The earliest instance we could find was the purported screenshot posted on that date by Twitter user Travis Allen. Despite searching Twitter and online news archives from 2012 onward, we did not find a single reference to Trump advocating the impeachment of the U.S. president in the event of a significant stock market drop. Twitter Nobody made reference to such a tweet despite almost six years passing -- not even when the Dow Jones dropped 1,175 points on 5 February 2018.  Also, we could find no variances in screenshots of the purported tweet. Every instance shows the same number of retweets and likes, and the same set of thumbnail avatars. Additional screenshots displaying variations in the number of retweets and likes, and/or different avatars, would at least suggest that someone besides Travis Allen had taken note of the tweet and kept a record of it (although that, in itself, would not amount to definitive corroboration).  As it stands, the case for the tweet's authenticity rests entirely on a sole Twitter user (out of hundreds of millions) having taken a screenshot of it between 6 November 2012 and 11 October 2018, before it could have been deleted.  Finally, the person who posted the earliest known instance of the tweet has a history of posting anti-Trump "sharebait," a fact that casts even more reasonable doubt on its authenticity.  Allen's own 11 October tweet implores readers to "retweet and like to spread this old Trump tweet." This effort to garner shares and engagement is a common feature of his Twitter account. In the week leading up to the "Dow Jones" screenshot, Allen published nine tweets that included requests that readers share and like his content. For example:  Remember when Trump said he was going to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it? ??? RT and like if you remember!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 9, 2018 October 9, 2018 Many many people are saying that Brett Kavanaugh is the WORST SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE! Retweet and like if you agree!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018 The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to two leading figures in the movement to end sexual violence as a weapon of war. Remember when #MAGA thought Trump was going to get the Nobel Peace Prize for getting a picture with Kim Jong Un? ??? #MAGA RT if you remember! pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 5, 2018 October 5, 2018   A pattern of posting partisan sharebait does not prove that Allen's "Dow Jones" tweet was fake, but it justifies further skepticism about its authenticity.  We sent Allen a message asking him whether he fabricated the tweet, and, if not, whether he could provide the date on which he captured a screenshot of it, its URL, or an archive link to it. We did not receive a response.  Chang, Sue; Vlastelica, Ryan. "U.S. Stocks Close Lower as Dow Drops Nearly 1,400 Points in 2 Days."
 Marketwatch. 11 October 2018. Rampell, Catherine. "The Stock Market Under Trump vs. Obama."
 The Washington Post. 1 May 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Did Trump Tweet That the President Should Be Shot Out of a Cannon If the Stock Market Tanked?"
 Snopes.com. 5 February 2018. Phipps, Claire; Wearden, Graeme; Fletcher, Nick. "Australian and Asian Stock Markets Slide After Dow Suffers Biggest One-Day Points Fall -- As It Happened."
 The Guardian. 6 February 2018. The insecticide chlorpyrifos, sold under the brand names Lorsban, Dursban, and others, has been the subject of regulatory battles for decades. It was first introduced as a pesticide in 1965, and it remains the most commonly applied pesticide in the United States. In 1996, the Clinton administration signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated regular scientific reviews and safety evaluations of existing pesticides based on childrens health safety benchmarks. One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses: Lorsban 1965 remains 2000 This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. This action  the result of an agreement with the manufacturers  will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children. Following this ruling, the EPA additionally ruled that chlorpyrifos would remain classified as safe for use in other agricultural and industrial settings. This latter ruling resulted in a September 2007 petition to the EPA filed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which jointly requested that the agency ban the pesticide or issue final rulings on their acceptable levels (legally termed tolerances) in food. In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals mandated that the EPA respond to this petition by either banning the chemical completely or issuing final rulings on tolerances of the chemicals residue on food products by October 31, 2015. mandated Following this court order, the EPA conducted a lengthy review and delivered a proposal on 6 November 2015, which suggested  as requested by the petition  that all currently published tolerances regarding chlorpyrifos residue on food should be revoked: proposal EPA is proposing to revoke all tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos [including] tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos on specific food commodities; on all food commodities treated in food handling and food service establishments in accordance with prescribed conditions; and on specific commodities when used under regional registrations. The agency is proposing to revoke all of these tolerances because EPA cannot, at this time, determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable information, are safe. In March 2017, before the EPAs proposal was implemented, Scott Pruitt  the new EPA administrator under President Donald Trump  reversed course and argued the previous administrations scientific rationale was dubious, denying the petition: reversed course In October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The decision to deny the petition faced renewed scrutiny because the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, had been appointed by Trump to a White House manufacturing working group, and his company subsequently donated $1 million to Donald Trumps inauguration fund. Liveris also was scrutinized over reports that he met with Pruitt prior to his announcement reversing the ban.  appointed reports On 19 November 2017, using text from a viral Chelsea Handler tweet, the progressive Facebook Page "Really American" launched a petition with a call to action: using text   We explore each component of this memetic claim: Chlorpyrifos Was Invented by the Nazis as a Nerve Agent false. Chlorpyrifos is a specific chemical that belongs to a broader class of chemicals called organophosphates. While the Nazis were at the forefront of developing this broader class as both weapons and insecticides, they can not be credited with inventing chlorpyrifos specifically. In the 1930s, a German researcher named Gerhard Schrader at German chemical producer IG Farben (infamous for producing the gas most commonly employed at Nazi death camps) discovered that organophosphates interact with cholinesterase, an enzyme that aids in the production of an important neurotransmitter in animals. IG Farben interact Originally this effect was explored as a way to produce an insecticide, but one of Schrader's formulations, named Preparation 9/91, ended up being extremely toxic to humans. Schrader himself required hospitalization as a result of his own interaction with it. This discovery was reported to Nazi authorities, who mandated that all German researchers report any scientific development that could have military applications to the regime. required  Shraders discovery led to the discovery and production of some of the worlds most infamous organophosphate nerve gases, including Tabun and Sarin gases. Other countries, including Britain and the United States, also began research into organophosphates during WWII as weapons. After the war ended, research resumed into organophosphate use as an insecticide. led Chlorpyrifos, a specific formulation of an organophosphate, is included as one of many chemicals assigned to the Dow Chemical company in a 1963 patent which lists United States-based researcher Raymond Rigterink as the inventor. The only connection that chlorpyrifos has to the Nazi regime is its foundational work on the biological effects of organophosphates that researchers performed prior to, and during, WWII. Many nations built on this work after the war. patent Chlorpyrifos Causes Brain Damage Unproven, but likely. That organophosphates can be toxic to humans is nothing new. The idea, in developing such a chemical for use an insecticide, is to engineer an organophosphate that is below the threshold for affecting the human nervous system (via its effect on cholinesterase, something scientifically referred to as AChE inhibition) but is still toxic to insects. AChE inhibition From a scientific standpoint, the main controversy surrounds the potential residual effects that chlorpyrifos may have on the neurological development of fetuses and young children, which some studies have documented even at levels well below what is currently considered acceptable. In their 2016 decision to ban all tolerances for the chemical on food, the Environmental Protection Agency stated: In summary, the EPAs assessment is that the [Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health, CCCEH] study, with supporting results from the other 2 U.S. cohort studies and the seven additional epidemiological studies reviewed in 2015, provides sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required for AChE inhibition. The primary study cited by the EPA was conducted by the Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. This study compared fetal exposure to chlorpyrifos (based on sampling of blood in the mother's umbilical cord) to differences in brain development:  study We investigated associations between [chlorpyrifos, CPF] exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 children, 5.911.2 y, selected from a nonclinical, representative community-based cohort. Twenty high-exposure children (upper tertile of CPF concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children on cortical surface features [...]. In a press release this study, CCCEH said: press release Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child [...] Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of [...] CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7. previously reported [...] Notably, the brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current EPA threshold for toxicity, which is based on exposures high enough to inhibit the action of the key neurological enzyme cholinesterase. The present findings suggest that the mechanism underlying structural changes in the brain may involve other pathways. There have been several large-scale studies that show a similar association between exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates to neurological problems, and there have been several studies proposing hypotheses about why such an association exists, but there lacks a rigorous consensus on the later point. The Pruitt EPA, in essence, has used this uncertainty to punt a decision on its neurological effects to a later review date: lacks date Following a review of comments on both the November 2015 proposal and the November 2016 notice of data availability, EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. As noted, Congress has provided that EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the 9th Circuit's August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the Petition would not be granted, EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims. Pruitt highlighted specific methodological problems and uncertainties scientists raised during their 2016 review, but importantly neglected to mention that at the time of the panels meeting, they still concluded that the ban was necessary  even if the mechanistic aspects of chlorpyrifos danger are not yet settled. Jim Jones, the former head of the EPA chemical safety unit, contended in an interview with the New York Times that the science behind the neurological risks of chlorpyrifos is not questioned:  neglected interview They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid, Mr. Jones said, adding that he believed the ruling would put farm workers and exposed children at unnecessary risk. Speaking of the EPAs reversal, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement suggesting that Pruitts decision was not based on science, arguing an ethical responsibility to use science for the good of humanity: arguing Science should be used to prevent harm and to protect lives. The decision to put the agenda of a corporation over the lives and wellbeing of Americans is an egregious failure of our government to use strong, independent science to protect public health and safety. Chlorpyrifos Was Supposed to Be Banned in 2017, but Trump Is Now Allowing It True. In a broad sense, the "blame" for this chlorpyrifos ban reversal belongs only indirectly to Trump himself. He did, however, appoint anti-regulation crusader Scott Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, who subsequently decided to exercise his executive authority to reject the chlorpyrifos petition and reverse the previous EPAs ban, which is a power afforded to Pruitt through the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: anti-regulation afforded Act: Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, EPA is authorized to respond to a section 408( d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a final rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed rule, or issuing an order denying the Petition. If Pruitt had not exercised this authority, the EPA had a court-mandated deadline to make a ruling on the matter by 31 March 2017. Prior to this deadline, Pruitt issued his own ruling rejecting the work done by previous advisory boards. Had a different administrator been in charge, that call may have been very different.  to make a ruling As a result of Trump and Pruitts actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017. Dow Chemicals Gave President Trump $1 Million for His Inauguration True. Dow Chemicals donated one million dollars to Trumps inaugural committee, a donation described by political news site TheHill.com as among Trumps largest. Dow also donated $250,000 to the 2005 George W. Bush inaugural committee (whose administration also sought to limit regulation on chlorpyrifos), but not to either the 2009 or 2013 Obama inaugural funds. described 2009 2013 Responding to an April 2017 report alleging that Dow attempted to kill efforts to study the negative effects of chlorpyrifos, Dow contended that the gift was legal and not part of an influence campaign: report Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the companys $1 million donation to Trumps inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions is completely off the mark. Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, Schikorra said. Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity. Although it is clear that Dow Chemicals actively lobbied against a chlorpyrifos ban, we cannot rule on claims that their $1 million donation influenced Trump or Pruitt to change their view on the issue. lobbied While some aspects of the text included in the Chelsea Handler tweet and Really American petition, such as chlorpyrifoss connection to Nazi Germany and the scientific degree to which irreversible brain damage has been alleged, include some uncertainty, the bulk of its claims are true. The EPAs scientific community was certain enough, despite questions about methods or mechanisms, to agree with the petition that chlorpyrifos posed a risk to neurological health and should be banned. President Donald Trump, who did receive a significant amount of money from Dow Chemicals for his inauguration, unilaterally reversed this decision through his administrator Pruitts actions. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  "Chlorpyrifos: Production, Import/export, Use, and Disposal.
  Accessed 27 November 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos.
  Archived from 19 January 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Dursban Announcement.
  8 June 2000. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  "Pesticide Action Network North America; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  10 August 2015. Regulations.gov.  "Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos.
  6 November 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide.
  29 March 2017. Biesecker, Michael.  "Pesticide Maker Tries to Kill Risk Study."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2017. Associated Press.  "EPA Chief Met with Dow Chemical CEO Before Deciding Not to Ban Toxic Pesticide.
  30 June 2017. Everts, Sarah.  "The Nazi Origins of Deadly Nerve Gases."
  C&EN.  17 October 2016. Rauh, Virginia A. et al.  "Brain Anomalies in Children Exposed Prenatally to a Common Organophosphate Pesticide"
  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  30 April 2012. Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health.  "Insecticide Linked to Altered Brain Structure.
  30 April 2012. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the April 19-21 2016 FIFRA SAP Meeting Held to Consider and Review Scientific Issues Associated with Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of Biomonitoring Data?
  21 April 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances.
  March 2017. Lipton, Eric.  "E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agencys Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide."
  The New York Times.  29 March 2017. Union of Concerned Scientists.  "How Dow Chemical Influenced the EPA to Ignore the Scientific Evidence on Chlorpyrifos.
  April 2017. Goodell, Jeff.  "Scott Pruitt's Crimes Against Nature."
  Rolling Stone.  27 July 2017. Wilson, Megan R.  "Corporate Donors to Trump Inaugural Revealed."
  Rolling Stone.  2 February 2017.