Did CNN's Brooke Baldwin Say Military Veterans Can't Be Trusted with Authority?
In April 2015, a rumor started circulating online holding that CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin had said, "Don't hire veterans. They can't be trusted with authority":  In later versions, this rumor was presented as Baldwin's having said, "Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority":  Baldwin, however, never said this. The quote "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority" is a very loose paraphrase of a passage from her 28 April 2015 interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland about the importance of police training:  "We talk about training, we talk about having officers. I was talking to the city councilman last week who was saying, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There's a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of these young people  and I've been talking about them so much. A lot of young people  and I love our nation's veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle." Baldwin's actual comment about how some veterans might not make good police officers because "some of them are coming back from war [and] they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle" was rather far from the claim that she had stated "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority." Still, many viewers (and many who didn't even see the interview) found Baldwin's words to be offensive. Shortly after the interview aired, Baldwin issued an apology via Twitter: apology  Baldwin also clarified her comments and issued an on-air apology the following morning: apology  "I absolutely misspoke. I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I've thought tremendously about this, and to our nation's veterans  to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry."
The late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., known for his eloquence and ability to mobilize the masses throughout the Civil Rights era, is often incorrectly credited for quotes that he never said. One of the most famous lines attributed to King is typically quoted as "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In January 2024, this quote was even posted on the official X (formerly Twitter) page of the State of Israel. "???????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ????. ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ?? ????." - ?????? ?????? ???? ??. Today we mark Martin Luther King pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r  Israel  ?? (@Israel) January 15, 2024 January 15, 2024 These words were indeed written by King. However, for more than a decade now, there has been confusion as to the precise wording of the quote. In 2011, following the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, a version of the quote went viral on the internet. It stated: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Given that if followed the controversial killing of bin Laden, the quote spread across the internet at an impressive reach, especially for the time. Penn Jillette, a famous magician and outspoken libertarian, tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers, and it only continued to go viral from there. tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers Questions about whether the quote was presented accurately were picked up by The Atlantic, NPR, and other news outlets. They found the wording was correct except for the very first sentence, which was not found in King's speeches or writings: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." The Atlantic NPR As it turns out, however, Jillette was only a perpetuator  not the originator  of the erroneous version of the quote. Before Jillette shared it, Facebook user Jessica Dovey quoted the King passage correctly on her status, but prefaced it with a sentence expressing her own personal thoughts: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." She distinguished her own thoughts from King's via an opening quotation mark, which was dropped somewhere along the line as it picked up internet traction. on her status  (Image via The Atlantic) The complete quote by King, which can be found in his 1963 book "Strength to Love," read as follows: "Strength to Love," Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says Love your enemies, he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemiesor else? The chain reaction of evilhate begetting hate, wars producing more warsmust be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. Commenters on Israel's X post quoting King were quick to point to a clarification provided by Bernice King, MLK's youngest daughter, on Oct. 31, 2023, in regard to her father's stance on Israel. ? Amy: Certainly, my father was against antisemitism, as am I. He also believed militarism (along with racism and poverty) to be among the interconnected Triple Evils. I am certain he would call for Israels bombing of Palestinians to cease, for hostages to be released https://t.co/haahcqcuAf https://t.co/haahcqcuAf  Be A King (@BerniceKing) November 1, 2023 November 1, 2023 We've previously written on other rumors related to King, including whether the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself and whether King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth. rumors related to King the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth.  Grant, Drew. Penn Jillette Explains the Fake Martin Luther King Jr.: I Made a Mistake.Salon, 3 May 2011, https://www.salon.com/2011/05/03/fake_mlj_quote_osama_death/. Https://Twitter.Com/BerniceKing/Status/1719524029600612666.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1719524029600612666. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Https://Twitter.Com/Israel/Status/1746912379667890196.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1746912379667890196. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Jr, Martin Luther King.Strength to Love. Beacon Press, 2019. Loving Your Enemies, Sermon Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. McArdle, Megan. Anatomy of a Fake Quotation.The Atlantic, 3 May 2011, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/. Peralta, Eyder. As The Bin Laden Story Raced Online, A Tale Of Two Misattributed Quotes.NPR, 3 May 2011.NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/04/135965263/as-the-bin-laden-story-raced-online-a-tale-of-two-misattributed-quotes. 5 Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes People Think He Said but Actually Didnt.Yahoo News, 17 Jan. 2016, http://news.yahoo.com/5-martin-luther-king-jr-121303266.html. Corporate profits have been rising. The Commerce Department reported that corporate profits from current production increased 21.4 percent in 2006 and were up 12.5 percent in 2005. CEO pay has also gone up. A Forbes report in May 2007 said chief executives of the nation's 500 largest companies got a 38 percent raise in 2006, on top of a 6 percent hike in 2005 and a 54 percent raise in 2004. And Clinton is right that average wages have been flat. Adjusted for inflation, median family income has been flat since 2001, hovering around $54,000, according to government statistics. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland. In December 2023, online advertisements were displayed to YouTube users that showed one or more photos of Five Guys restaurant locations. For example, the caption for one ad read, "They're Closing Doors In 2024. Restaurant Chains Closing 2024."  Also, in Google ads that featured the same photos of Five Guys restaurants, the caption was displayed as follows: "They're Closing Doors in 2024. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Fast Food Restaurants Be Closing The Doors." Several other variations of these ads were also displayed online.  The ads appeared to claim that Five Guys would be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. However, this was false. All of the ads led to an article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." The article's page source code indicated that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed 68 different businesses, most that appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. In other words, the article was fairly long. Nowhere in the apparent 68-slide article was Five Guys mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Five Guys restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through 68 slides for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Five Guys by email to ask if they had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/. Claim:  Maps show similarity between 2004 U.S. presidential election results and pattern of free vs. slave states in pre-Civil War America.   Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004]  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results Pre-Civil War Free vs. Slave States  Origins:  This is another example for which it is difficult to assign a value of "" or ""  there is a basic (and somewhat superficial) underlying fact which is true, but interpretations of that fact's significance are subjective and can be widely varied. It is true that a map showing the locations of free and slave states (and territories) in the pre-Civil War U.S. bears a rough resemblance to a map showing the electoral vote results for the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Senator John Kerry won most of the states in the northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific coast regions, while President George W. Bush captured all of the south plus most of the midwestern, western, and plains states.  However, the similarities between these maps mask some very significant differences. On the eve of the Civil War (which began in April 1861), the United States was very sharply divided along regional lines.  Going into the 1860 campaign, the two major parties both essentially  split in two, each creating a northern and a southern wing.  In the subsequent presidential election the northern Whig/Republican party (represented by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois) didn't even appear on the ballot in most southern states, and while the Southern Democratic party (represented by John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky) did make the ballot throughout most of the north, they rarely drew more than a relative handful of votes in those states.  All four candidates captured at least one state's electoral votes, a rarity in U.S. election history. election captured The electorate in 2004 was not nearly so sharply divided along regional lines, however  an electoral map just makes it appear that way because of the "winner take all" nature of the U.S. electoral system.  Both the popular and electoral vote totals in 2004 were quite close (President Bush won the popular vote by a 51%-48% margin, and a single strongly-contested state such as Ohio could have tipped the electoral vote balance in the other direction), and although the states won by each candidate were largely clumped into regional clusters, both candidates generally ran very strongly even in the states they did not win.  An election map with finer gradation (i.e., displaying results on a county-by-county basis rather than a state-by-state one, and providing color shading to reflect the closeness of the vote in each area) produces a better picture of how strongly both candidates in the 2004 election ran even in states which they lost: 2004  (Click here for a larger version of this map.) here According to exit polls and analysis of county-by-county election returns, the sharpest geographic distinction between the two candidates did not primarily correspond to region but to size of community: Senator John Kerry had a substantial 60%-39% edge in large cities (representing roughly 13% of the total U.S. population), while the reverse was true in rural areas (representing roughly 16% of the total U.S. population), where President Bush garnered a 59%-40% majority.  What we saw in the 2004 election was more of an urban vs. rural division, regardless of state. exit polls Last updated:  11 November 2004    Sources:   Alexander, Kate.  "Election Officials Urge Voters to Check Ballots for Errors."   Austin American-Statesman.  23 October 2004  (p. B1). The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback On Feb. 25, 2024, just before 1 p.m. Eastern time, a 25-year-old active-duty member of the U.S. Air Force named Aaron Bushnell went live on the video streaming platform Twitch. Dressed incombat fatigues, Bushnell walked up to the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., set his phone down so it would capture his actions, poured a liquid accelerant over his head out of a metal thermos, put on his cap and lit himself on fire. He died later that day. lit himself on fire According to some posts on X (formerly known as Twitter), the comment history of a Reddit account supposedly owned by Bushnell contained a blatantly antisemitic comment that left users wondering about his motives and beliefs. some posts on X  (@leekern13 / X) The comment attributed to Bushnell read, "Palestine will be free when all the jews are dead." This was not a real comment posted by "acebush1," the handle Bushnell allegedly used on Reddit, and cannot be attributed to Bushnell. While walking toward the embassy, Bushnell did provide a brief explanation for his action. "I will no longer be complicit in genocide," he explained to the camera. "I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal." As Bushnell lit himself on fire, he began repeatedly shouting "Free Palestine," interrupted by loud screams of pain. A censored version of the video, posted to X by independent journalist Talia Jane with permission from Bushnell's loved ones, can be viewed here. (Because the video, even censored, is very disturbing, Snopes has elected to only provide a link in lieu of embedding the footage.) Talia Jane here As the news of the act spread, various news outlets and individuals began investigating Bushnell's online presence. By using a since-deleted post on Bushnell's Facebook page that linked to his Twitch account, The Intercept was able to identify one of Bushnell's long-term usernames online: "acebush1." This is the username Bushnell supposedly used to post the antisemitic comment to Reddit. The Intercept We started by investigating who owns/owned the "acebush1" Reddit account, and we came to the same conclusion: It does appear to be owned by Bushnell. The posting history of the now-suspended account contains plenty of references to the Air Force and a confirmation that the user was an active-duty member. It also contains a lot of posts supporting leftist, mainly anarchist, viewpoints. The presence of those political views further solidifies the connection between the account and Bushnell, who, according to the BBC, sent emails to left-wing and anarchist news sites earlier that day alerting them to his planned protest. Finally, we cross-checked the "acebush1" username across other platforms and discovered that the Instagram account with that username, which was created in April 2018, also belonged to Aaron Bushnell. posting history BBC Instagram Next, we attempted to verify whether there was a comment made on Bushnell's Reddit account that matched the screenshots we saw on X. This process was complicated by the fact that many of Bushnell's Reddit posts had been deleted. However, by going to the "acebush1" user profile directly, Bushnell's comment history was still visible. According to the screenshots on X, the post in question was made "2 months ago." acebush1 We looked at all comments from the account that were posted between one month and three months ago just to be sure we would catch the comment in question. It wasn't there. We double-checked this using PullPush, a website that allows you to view the contents of deleted Reddit comments. Nothing matched the screenshot. We reverse image searched the photo of the supposed post on TinEye and Google and looked through those links to see if anyone could provide a link to the original comment. Again, nothing. PullPush TinEye Google In fact, according to athread posted to X(archived) by Talia Jane, the screenshot's original poster "got it from a friend." In conclusion, there is absolutely zero evidence for the claim besides the one screenshot of the supposed post shared on X. As such, we rate this claim "Fake." posted to X archived Some online have claimed that to rationalize his actions, Bushnell must have been mentally unstable. The history of self-immolation does not necessarily support that claim. According to Time magazine, self-immolation as an act of protest dates back centuries, as far back as an old Hindu practice of ritual suicide called sati and Catholic persecution during the Roman Empire. It was brought to international attention when photojournalist Malcolm Browne captured the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc while he was actively burning in 1963. In the years that followed, several American citizens set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. Some Time sati Thich Quang Duc several American citizens More recently, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in 2010 directly started the Tunisian Revolution and is credited as one of the main causes of the Arab Spring. In the United States, multiple people have self-immolated to protest inaction against climate change, first in 2018, then in2020, then in2022. Bushnell became the second American to do so in protest of Israeli military action in Gaza, following an unidentified personwho self-immolated outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta on Dec. 1, 2023. Mohamed Bouazizi's 2018 2020 2022 unidentified person Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey.  Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion.  The name of Southwest Airlines, a major U.S. airline which is also the world's largest low-cost carrier, has frequently been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years.  In February 2016, social media users encountered posts that appeared to be from Southwest Airlines, offering to give away four tickets to Las Vegas and $5,000 spending money to Facebook users who shared and liked a page.  The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel  "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print.  The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by Southwest Airlines) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:  Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware.    In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking Southwest Airlines has responded to such scams by issuing messages on Twitter that read: "Hey folks! There is a scam being passed around on Facebook about a free ticket offer from SWA. Please don't click or share the links!" As well, Southwest spokesperson Christi McNeill has said of these attempts to defraud that "We are aware of the scam for free tickets being spread across Facebook. This offer is in no way affiliated with Southwest Airlines and we are working with Facebook to get it removed." A 46-year-old wealthy investment manager in Kentucky is mounting a Republican primary challenge to the states senior senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Matt Bevin comes from the tea party wing of the GOP. Early polls suggest Bevin has a ways to go before he could unseat McConnell, but Kentucky voters sent libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul to Washington, and Bevin has the money to get his message to party activists. The two candidates have begun trading attack ads. The latest from Bevin ties McConnell to the financial rescue measures passed by Congress as the economy headed into a tailspin in 2008. Heres the key text fromBevins ad: Announcer: After pushing the Wall Street bailout through the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell bragged (video clip of McConnell) This has been the Senate at its finest. Announcer: And what are fact-checkers saying about Mudslinging Mitchs latest attacks on conservative Matt Bevin? Misleading (image from Washington Post) Doesnt add up (image from local Fox news) Like Obama campaign attacks (image from Washington Post) After 30 years in Washington, voting for one bailout after another, slinging mud is all Sen. McConnell has left. The ad plays to antigovernment sentiment among people who see Washingtons multibillion dollar intervention in 2008 as a gross overreach of public power and a favor to the financial elite. We will examine this specific claim the ad makes to link McConnell to specific actions. Did McConnell push the bailout, formally known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, through the Senate? To answer that, we have to go back to September and October 2008. As the housing market bubble burst, the web of investments that bound just about every financial player to each other threatened a global freeze on lending. On Sept. 29, 2008, three days before the Senate vote on TARP, two leading voices from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, described the situation. In The bailout package: Vital and acceptable, Edwin Meese, President Ronald Reagans attorney general, and Stuart Butler wrote: Some key parts of the credit market are on the verge of gridlock, resulting not just in the collapse of major financial institutions but also in credit disruption that is severely weakening the long-term prospects of non-financial companies. And while this is currently most visible in Wall Street and in the financial sector, it is only a matter of time before the fallout hits Main Street, with potentially devastating economic effects for typical American households. President George W. Bush was pressing for passage of a $700 billion bailout. So were GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. In late September, an effort to get a bill through the House of Representatives had just failed. The action shifted to the Senate where McConnell played a key role in negotiations. In afloor speechright before the Senate voted, McConnell took credit for the package and urged his fellow Republicans to approve the emergency intervention. After extensive consultation between the majority leader and myself and the leaders in both parties here in the Senate, we believe we have crafted a way to go forward and to get us back on track, McConnell said. This is the only way to get the right kind of solution for the American people. The Senatepassed the TARPon a vote of 74 to 25, with 40 Democrats, one independent and 33 Republicans including McConnell voting in favor. Nine Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against it. On the night the bill passed, McConnell joined Republicans and Democrats in a quickpress conferenceto mark the moment. This has been the Senate at its finest, McConnell said. In the years that Ive been here, I cant recall a single time, where in this close proximity to an election, both sides have risen above the temptation to engage in partisan game playing if you will, to address an issue of great magnitude. We should note that part of the compromise that produced TARP included a provision to release the money in two installments. When a vote came for the second infusion of cash, in January 2009,McConnell joined 32 Republicansand nine Democrats in a failed effort to oppose it. McConnell said he voted for the first installment on the condition that it be used to prevent a systemic economic collapse but didn't like that part of it was used to help the auto industry. The current (Bush) administration used these funds for the auto industry, a move that I opposed. Now Congressional Democrats are urging more of the same, McConnell said in astatement. The American people still don't have assurances that this money will not be wasted or misused to play favorites. According to arecent Treasury report, of the $420.61 billion dollars spent under TARP including the governments stake in the insurer American International Group, $420.49 billion has been returned to the government. Our ruling Bevin said that McConnell pushed the Wall Street bailout through the Senate. The record shows that McConnell actively supported emergency government intervention in the financial markets and spoke openly of playing a key role in crafting compromise legislation. However, to say that he pushed the bill through the Senate downplays that other political leaders, including the Republican president and the partys presidential nominee, also pressed to get the measure passed. The ad also ignores that in January 2009, there was a second bailout funding vote and on that one, McConnell voted no. Still, McConnell worked hard to get the initial bailout through the Senate. We rate the claim Mostly True. In the summer of 2020, amid a new wave of nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality, readers inquired about the accuracy of online articles and social media posts that claimed a convicted terrorist sat on the board of directors of a left-leaning organization that provides fundraising and administration services for the Black Lives Matter movement. On July 8, 2020, Twitter user @asdomke posted a widely-shared tweet that read:  "This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc."   In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly.  article Daily Caller Western Journal Bill O'Reilly On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show.  segment Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that: report Some conservatives have begun speculating the unrest in American cities -- even as late as Monday night in Washington, DC as protestors unsuccessfully worked to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson and set up an autonomous zone across the street from the White House -- may in part be an attempt to affect the upcoming presidential election, with the chaos and violence intended to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to win a second term. Lending credence to this idea is the fact that at least one board member of the group fiscally sponsoring the most organized part of the Black Lives Matter movement, who have been involved in most of the activity surrounding the current unrest -- tried the same thing almost 40 years ago during Ronald Reagans reelection campaign. And it landed her in federal prison for 16 years. If there were any question whether Black Lives Matter has ideological ties to the Communist terrorists of the 1960s, the story of Susan Rosenberg should put that issue to bed... Rosenberg, who started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s -- including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun. She currently serves as human and prisoner rights advocate and a vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities: outlines "In 2016, BLM Global Network approached Thousand Currents to create a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization, provides the legal and administrative framework to enable BLM to fulfill its mission. Fiscal sponsorship is a common structure utilized by nonprofit organizations. Oftentimes, nonprofit initiatives seek fiscal sponsorship to be able to have the fiscal sponsor handle administrative operations while the organization focuses on its programs and builds up its own organizational infrastructure. In this capacity, we provide administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance." Descriptions of Thousand Currents as an organization which "handles fundraising" for Black Lives Matter were therefore accurate. As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site. describing According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response. 2015 2016 2017 Rosenberg's prominent position within Thousand Currents is clear, as are that organization's close links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (and thereby the broader Black Lives Matter movement). However, the question of whether she should be described as a "terrorist" or "convicted terrorist" is much more complicated. Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker. said Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." charges In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison. sentence commuted According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents: incidents The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars. killed accused After Rosenberg's arrest in New Jersey in 1984, and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment on the weapons and explosives possession charges, prosecutors dropped the conspiracy and racketeering charges against her, and she was never tried or convicted in relation to the 1981 Brink's robbery, the 1979 Shakur prison escape, or other armed robberies. The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary. told In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI's office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents. dropped During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense." interview In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application: recounted "I outlined my criminal acts and what I felt about them then and now. I talked about the political ethos of the 1960s and how it had led me and my associates into thinking our activities were acceptable. I detailed how sorry I felt now, how I accepted responsibility for my past actions, and how I would never commit any crimes again. I tried to put my life within the context of the historical period when many Americans thought they could change the world and end war and racism and poverty. I tried to distinguish between my core values and my embrace of the use of political violence. I stated that I now rejected the use of violence. I meant all that I said." There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped. not guilty denied The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows: defines "... Activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ..." However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries. added In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such does not exist In the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..." accused Examining the 1980s bombings retrospectively, one might very well be justified as describing them as a campaign of domestic terrorism, even if prosecutors were not in a position to hang that label on them at the time. However, the charges against Rosenberg were dropped anyway, and she was never convicted in relation to the bombing campaign. In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added. wrote Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it." indicated One could reasonably argue that Rosenberg's actions in the explosives possession case served her and her comrades' overarching mission of militant opposition to U.S. government policy and broader power structures and were in keeping with the group's (if not Rosenberg's) proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism. Crane, Missy. "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC."
 WayneDupree.com. 28 June 2020. Kerr, Andrew. "A Convicted Terrorist Sits on Board of Charity Handling Black Lives Matter Fundraising."
 The Daily Caller. 27 June 2020. O'Reilly, Bill. "Does Karl Marx Matter?"
 BillOReilly.com. 5 July 2020. Walter, Scott. "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group."
 Capital Research Center. 24 June 2020. Raab, Selwyn. "Radical Fugitive in Brink's Robbery Arrested."
 The New York Times. 1 December 1984. The Associated Press/The Philadelphia Daily News. "2 Revolutionaries Get 58 Years Each in N.J."
 20 May 1985. Barbanel, Josh. "4 Indicted by U.S. in Escape of Joanne Chesimard in '79."
 The New York Times. 19 November 1982. Barbanel, Josh. "3 Killed in Armored Car Holdup."
 The New York Times. 21 October 1981. Gross, Jane. "Brink's Suspect Held Without Bail After She Refuses to Enter a Plea."
 The New York Times. 14 May 1985. Lipton, Eric. "Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist."
 The New York Times. 22 January 2001. The Associated Press/The New York Times. "3 Radicals Agree to Please Guilty in Bombing Case."
 6 September 1990. Rosenberg, Susan. "An American Radical..."
 Citadel Press. 2011. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 -- Definitions."
 Accessed 14 July 2020. McCord, Mary B. "It's Time for Congress to Make Domestic Terrorism a Federal Crime."
 Lawfare. 5 December 2018. Shenon, Philip. "U.S. Charges 7 in the Bombing at U.S. Capitol."
 The New York Times. 12 May 1988.