Do Bell Peppers Have Genders?
Bell peppers come in a variety of sizes and colors, and, according to a popular internet rumor, a variety of genders as well:  This old cook's tale about identifying the gender of bell peppers has been around for years, but it has recently seen an uptick in Internet interest on social media sites such as Pinterest. But no matter how many times the above-displayed image is shared, it will not change the fact that a bell pepper's sex cannot be determined by the number of bumps on its outer surface  in large part because peppers aren't classifiable as being wholly one sex or the other: Pinterest A section on the reproductive biology of peppers in The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts notes that bell peppers come from flowers possessing both male and female sex organs: "Pepper flowers are complete and perfect, that is they have a calyx, corolla and male and female sex organs. The flowers are protogynous, but readily self-pollinate." notes David Karp, a pomologist at UC Riverside, also addressed the rumor of bell pepper gender in 2013: "The supposition that there are male and female peppers is a common canard, but untrue. Peppers grow from flowers that have both male and female parts. The fruits do not have a gender." addressed While bell peppers are neither male nor female, some food blogs have insisted there is still some usefulness to this widespread rumor. For example, the Garden Frugal writes that while it is not scientifically accurate to label bell peppers male or female, assigning a gender may help cooks remember how to choose the right peppers: writes Describing peppers as a gender is not accurate, because bell peppers are hermaphroditic. The gender reference is used only as a memory aid to help select the best bell pepper for each purpose either eating raw, seed collection, or for cooking. There is a simple method for identifying which bell pepper has the traits you desire. Peppers with four lobes are female and those with three lobes are male. The female peppers with more lobes, contain more seeds are best for seed collecting and growing new plants (hence female). They are also sweeter when eaten raw. The male peppers with three or fewer lobes are better for grilling, cooking. They also contain fewer seeds. But this claim is also unfounded, as the number of lobes on a pepper does not have any bearing on its taste. And while it could be argued a four-lobed pepper has more seeds than a three-lobed pepper, this has more to do with the overall size of the fruit than the number of lobes.
On Feb. 2, 2021, two FBI agents were killed while serving a search warrant in Sunrise, Florida, in an investigation into violent crimes against children. The agents were identified by the FBI as Special Agents Daniel Alfin and Laura Schwartzenberger. killed Sadly, it didn't take conspiracy trolls long to pounce on this tragedy, claiming without evidence in memes that Alfin was "the top investigator for Hunter Biden's laptop":    This meme reflected another baseless claim that was pushed in the days leading up to the November 2020 election: that a laptop allegedly belonging to then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden contained child pornography. No evidence for this claim has surfaced. pushed That claim stemmed from a bizarre saga which played out in October 2020, when a laptop that allegedly belonged to the younger Biden and was left at a computer repair shop in Delaware was later given by the shop's owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, to a lawyer representing former President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who then provided a copy of the laptop's hard drive to the New York Post. bizarre saga Although the paper reported in detail on the contents of that laptop, the New York Post didn't state that they found evidence of child pornography on the laptop. This allegation circulated on various conspiracy sites and social media posts before the election and appeared to echo the Qanon conspiracy theory positing that various high-profile figures, from Democratic legislators to entertainers, are part of a satanic child trafficking ring. Qanon The New York Post story included what it reported were federal subpoenas for the laptop and its contents, which were seized by the FBI in December 2019. Hunter Biden announced in December 2020 that he had learned for the first time that federal authorities were investigating his tax affairs. story announced But the FBI agents who seized Biden's laptop were not the same ones who were serving the search warrant in Florida when the two agents were killed. The Baltimore Sun reported that the federal authorities who took the laptop from the computer shop owner work out of Baltimore and Wilmington, Delaware, and that their investigation involved finances: reported Isaac said he met with FBI agents in late 2019 and provided them with a timeline of events. The agents returned about two weeks later in mid-December with a grand jury subpoena allowing them to seize the laptop and the external hard drive. The subpoena was signed by a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorneys office in Wilmington who handles criminal investigations such as fraud, and Isaac acknowledged receiving it. The agents also gave him a receipt for what they took, according to a photograph of it published by Fox News. The receipt included an FBI code, 272D, the bureaus internal classification for money laundering investigations, and BA for its Baltimore field office. Officials separately confirmed that the FBI seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation, though they did not detail the inquiry or whether it involved money laundering or Hunter Biden. They also confirmed that the agent who signed the receipt works in Wilmington and is overseen by the Baltimore office. According to the FBI, Alfin and Schwartzenberger were assigned to FBI's Miami field office. Alfin, who was 36, had worked cases involving crimes against children out of FBI Miami since 2017. assigned Alfin and Schwartzenberger were serving a warrant on David Huber, a 55-year-old computer technician, who engaged agents in a pre-dawn gun battle, killing two FBI agents and wounding three others before turning the gun on himself. David Huber We found no real-world connection between Hunter Biden's laptop and the murder of the two FBI agents in Florida, and it appears that claims the two were linked were invented to stir up a specter of conspiracy where none was present. San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer is perhaps best known for his TV ads calling for President Trumps impeachment. At his first debate appearance as a Democratic presidential candidate last night in Ohio, Steyer repeated his call to remove what he termed the criminal in the White House. But he also railed against income inequality, leading fellow Democratic contender Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar to quip: ... no one on this stage wants to protect billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires. Steyers claim that caught our attention was that the vast majority of Americans havent received a raise for decades. I would undo every Republican tax cut for rich people and major corporations, Steyer promised. But there's something else going on here that is absolutely shameful, and that's the way the money gets split up in terms of earnings. As a result of taking away the rights of working people and organized labor, people haven't had a raise -- 90 percent of Americans have not had a raise for 40 years. Was his claim about raises accurate? We set out on a fact check. PolitiFacts analysis We turned toPolitiFacts analysisin April of a similar claim made by Democratic presidential contender and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Well place a rating on Steyers claim based on what PolitiFact found. Since 1973, the income of the bottom 90 percent, so pretty much all of us, didnt budge, or even retreated a little bit, Buttigieg claimed. PolitiFact investigated whether income levels for most people -- adjusted for inflation, which economists consider a necessity for such comparisons -- havent increased since 1973. It found that income levels have actually risen beyond inflation during that period, but the share of income taken by the bottom 90 percent hews pretty closely to what Buttigieg said. It rated the mayors claim Half True, meaning it is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. CBO data shows income growth In its fact check, PolitiFact revieweddata from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress, covering 1979 to 2015, most of the period in question. The figures CBO used were adjusted for inflation and federal taxes, but not for state and local taxes. They showed income growth for people in four different economic ranges: the lowest 20 percent of the income distribution, the middle 60 percent, the 81st percentile to the 99th percentile, and the top 1 percent. They didnt mirror Buttigiegs precise parameters, but economists said they are useful for showing whether the mayor was broadly right or not, PolitiFact reported. Heres a chart showing the CBO data:  The top 1 percent, in red, has the most unique and most impressive growth. The other income groups show positive but much slower growth, after adjusting for inflation. This undercuts Buttigiegs assertion that for most people, income didnt budge, or even retreated a little bit, since the 1970s, PolitiFact said. Other data supports the claims by Buttigieg and Steyer. Inflation-adjustedfigures from the Economic Policy Institute, for example, show clear wage stagnation for the bottom 60 percent of the income scale. The rate did go up for the 70 and 80 percent levels, which means the 90 percent figure would be a bit exaggerated. PolitiFact also cited theWorld Inequality Database. It shows the bottom 50 percent and the next 40 percent -- essentially the 90 percent that Buttigieg cited -- have taken declining shares of the nations income since 1973. By contrast, both the top 10 percent and the top 1 percent have seen their shares grow. When we asked Steyers campaign for evidence supporting his claim, it pointed to anAugust report by the Pew Research Center. It found todays real average wage, defined as the wage after accounting for inflation, has had some ups and downs, but has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers. Our ruling Tom Steyer claimed at the Democratic presidential debate in Ohio that, People haven't had a raise -- 90 percent of Americans have not had a raise for 40 years. PolitiFact in Aprilfact-checkeda similar claim by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Since 1973, the income of the bottom 90 percent, so pretty much all of us, didnt budge, or even retreated a little bit. It found that income for every group, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office, has actually increased beyond the rate of inflation since the 1970s. However, another measurement -- the share of income taken by the bottom 90 percent -- has indeed declined since 1973. It rated the mayors claim Half True. We agreed with PolitiFacts assessment and rated Steyers claim Half True, as well. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. If you received a text message purportedly from Amazon, chances are you are one of many and it is a scam. Over March and April 2021, many Snopes readers told us they received messages on their phones claiming they had won an AirPod or another device in a raffle. One of our editors also received the message, which said: Amazon: Congratulations Bond, you came second in this weeks Amazon pods raffle! Follow this link to [...]   She did not follow that link, however, because this appeared right away to be a scam. Indeed, the link did not connect to an official Amazon webpage. According to Amazon, all of its web pages normally follow the same format, ending in amazon.com, for example: pay.amazon.com or aws.amazon.com. Any link that is an IP address or a random string of numbers should be automatically suspicious. Amazon The Better Business Bureau (BBB) alerted users to this scam back in March. It warned that if you get a text message from a range of unknown numbers and with a suspicious link for collecting your item: alerted users Dont click! The text message is not from Amazon and it is the latest in a long list of impersonation scams that have been happening since the start of the pandemic, often using Amazons brand. The bogus raffle and suspicious link are part of a con used to trick people into visiting a phishing website, where they unwittingly share account credentials as well as personal and financial information with fraudsters. According to Amazon, any customer who receives a questionable email, text or call from a person impersonating Amazon or an Amazon employee should report them to Amazon customer service. Amazon investigates these complaints and will take action, if warranted. You can submit suspicious information to stop-spoofing@amazon.com. Amazon also offers a page to help identify if an email, text or phone call is really from Amazon. BBB also included a screenshot of a message similar to the one received by our editor, except the recipient was told that they came third in the raffle. When our editor reported the number that texted her to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it recommended a number of tips to block spam messages. The tips can be read here.  Federal Trade Commission (FTC) here Given that the link to collecting the so-called prize does not direct us to an official Amazon website, and it could potentially share your private information, we rate this claim a Scam. In March 2023, several media outlets and conservative pundits began sharing images of what they described as a deleted 2018 tweet from climate activist Greta Thunberg's account. That tweet, quoting from a now-deleted article, said, "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." tweet  Climate skeptics jumped on the deleted tweet as evidence of climate alarmism, insinuating that Thunberg's tweet suggested that, if climate science was accurate, humanity should be extinct at the time of this reporting. insinuating  Several problems exist with that narrative. First and foremost is the fact that the tweet and the article it linked to never said that humanity would vanish in 2023. Second, and also of crucial importance, is the "top climate scientist" referenced in the underlying article never actually said what these reports asserted him to have said. Here, Snopes untangles the controversy.  Yes, on June 21, 2018, Thunberg tweeted a link to a now deleted article on the website GritPost bearing the headline, "Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023." The GritPost article rehashed content originally published on Forbes about a seminar given by James Anderson, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric science, at the University of Chicago in 2018. tweeted deleted article content As reported by Forbes, Anderson's talk focused on the need for a massive effort to curb climate change over the next five years: reported People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industryan acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth's poles. This has to be done, Anderson added, within the next five years. The assertion that humanity would collapse as a result of this inaction stemmed from statements Forbes attributed to Anderson about declining Arctic ice: Forbes attributed "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years. "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no." Based on Internet Archive records, the GritPost article to which Thunberg linked was deleted sometime after July 2020. Thunberg deleted her tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. Thunberg did not respond to Snopes' request for comment. July 2020 sometime after The claim that a top climate scientist allegedly predicted the collapse of humanity in 2023 has been popular with climate skeptics since Anderson allegedly made the claim in 2018. The Forbes article and Thunberg tweet were both widely lampooned for their alarmism at the time. When 2023 came and humanity still persisted, these same actors were ready to relish the moment, as summarized by Newsweek: summarized [Charlie] Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, on March 12, 2023, wrote: "One of the best headlines of the year so far... 'Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying world will end in 2023 after world does not end.'" Filmmaker [Dinesh] D'Souza, on March 12, 2023, added: "Climate Radical Greta Thunberg Caught Red Handed: Deletes 2018 Tweet That Says World Will End Without Action by 2023." [Brigitte] Gabriel, founder of ACT for America, on March 11, 2023, also said: "Greta Thunberg deleted this tweet because it exposes her for being a fraud. Make sure the entire world sees it." All of these tweets misread the claim repeated by Thunberg, GritPost, and Forbes. The point, as these individuals or outlets reported, was that humanity had to reach certain carbon emission benchmarks by 2023, or else catastrophic events decades to centuries later would be guaranteed because of feedbacks in the climate system. As Forbes described: The answer [to the question "can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover"] is no in part because of what scientists call feedbacks, some of the ways the earth responds to warming. Among those feedbacks is the release of methane currently trapped in permafrost and under the sea, which will exacerbate warming. Another is the pending collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, which Anderson said will raise sea level by 7 meters (about 23 feet). Conflating the years scientists claim to be so-called "tipping points" with the year in which the end result of those tipping points is supposed to emerge is a rhetorical tactic common in climate-denial circles. Snopes has previously reported on the imprecise quotes contained in a 1989 Associated Press article misused in a similar way. a similar way Regardless of any Thunberg tweet, the claim allegedly made by Anderson that "the chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero" has also recently been shared as evidence of climate "fraud," suggesting Anderson made a failed prediction:  The Forbes article was the only place in which the content of Anderson's seminar was reported, but Anderson toldThe Associated Press that he never made that argument, and that his words were wildly misinterpreted in media reports: Anderson told "That is a complete fabrication of what I said," Anderson wrote, referring to the claims he said humanity would be wiped out in five years. He said that during the seminar, he was displaying the most recent observations of Arctic sea ice volume  specifically the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean  and made the statement that "the current observed rate of floating ice loss volume, there will be no floating ice remaining by 2022." The focus of the statement was on the floating ice volume and the observed rate of disappearance at that time, he said. "Thus the statement was clear to those in attendance that the reference was to floating ice volume in the data shown on the slide, not arctic ice in general," Anderson clarified, adding, "so, the 'wiping out of humanity by 2022' is a total distortion of what I said or meant at the University of Chicago colloquium in 2018. I would never make such a statement." Thunberg deleted a tweet that repeated an imprecise paraphrase of a climate scientist's 2018 seminar talk. While it is factual that she deleted this tweet, claims that the tweet argued humanity would end in 2023 are false. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of truth. McMahon, Jeff. "We Have Five Years To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says." Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/. Accessed 17 Mar. 2023. Norton, Tom. "Fact Check: Did Greta Thunberg Delete Claim That Humanity Will End by 2023?" Newsweek, 13 Mar. 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-greta-thunberg-delete-claim-that-humanity-will-end-2023-1787420. "Posts Distort 2018 Greta Thunberg Tweet on Climate Danger." AP NEWS, 16 Mar. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080. Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct If We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023. 1 May 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20180501150731/https://gritpost.com/humans-extinct-climate-change/.
 Update [3/22/2023]: Updated to read that Thunberg deleted the tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. On April 7, 2021, the real estate gossip website Dirt reported that Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors had purchased a home in Topanga, an eccentric neighborhood located in the western portion of Los Angeles, for $1.4 million. Dirt reported eccentric Categorized under real estate purchases by "politicians," Dirt's headline reported, "Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors Lands Topanga Canyon Compound." (Cullors is a political activist, but she isn't a "politician" in the sense that she holds public office.) The story sparked a tsunami of spinoff articles and commentary with the aggregate effect of creating a cloud of doubt over the finances of the nonprofit organization associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, the peak of which was a claim in a meme that baselessly accused Cullors of using donations to Black Lives Matter to purchase the house:   But Dirt's article, which is the source that all of the stories and posts about the Topanga home purchase are based on, didn't report that Cullors purchased the home with BLM donations. It said the home was sold "to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled" by Cullors, but didn't name the corporation. Cullors is a fairly high-profile public figure. Aside from being an activist and organizer, she makes frequent media appearances. She is the co-author of a best-selling book, "When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir." She also signed a deal with Warner Brothers in late 2020 to create programming for the network's various platforms. book deal We sent Dirt an email asking if they would disclose the name of the business entity the home was sold to, but didn't receive a response in time for publication. We haven't been able to independently verify Dirt's report that Cullors purchased the home in Topanga. Her name didn't come up in our own public records search. In an April 2022 investigative report by New York Magazine's Intelligencer outlining a $6 million home purchase by Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN), however, movement leaders appeared to indirectly acknowledge that Cullors had indeed purchased properties, although it doesn't give specifics. In a statement sent to Snopes by email, BLMGNF directly denied the allegation that Cullors had used donation money to buy the Topanga Canyon home, or any other personal property: To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false. Since the organization's inception in 2013, the Foundation said Cullors received compensation totaling $120,000 for work that included serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education. Since 2019, Cullors' role with the Foundation has been voluntary and unpaid. She currently serves as the executive director, per the Foundation's statement. The organization also characterized the narrative as a "right-wing offensive" against a high-profile Black activist that "not only puts Patrisse, her child and her loved ones in harms way, it also continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists." We'll break down some of the dialogue and reporting around this story, but the important points are these: If it's true that Cullors purchased the Topanga home, no evidence has been presented that proves she did so with donation money. This claim is based on supposition. Important additional context is that while many stories about the home portray it as a lavish purchase, those portrayals are exaggerated. Compared with other properties listed on Dirt, the home reportedly purchased by Cullors is relatively modest. Other posts on the site detail multi-million dollar estates bought by the likes of pop music icon Madonna, tennis champion Serena Williams, and pop star Ariana Grande. Even if it's true that Cullors purchased a single family home in Los Angeles for $1.4 million, we note that because of overall home prices in L.A., that amount doesn't go as far as it would in other areas. Dirt reports that the home in Topanga has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a guest house and sits on just over a quarter of an acre-sized lot. It's not small but to call it a "mansion" as Fox News did in an April 13 headline is a stretch. headline Right-leaning Media Research Center tweeted, "The liberal media wont cover this: [Black Lives Matter] co-founder Patrisse Cullors bought a 1.4 MILLION dollar house near Beverly Hills." tweeted Everything in the city of Los Angeles could technically be described as being "near Beverly Hills" just as easily as it could be described as being "near Disneyland." The Topanga community is about 20 miles from Beverly Hills. Many of the reports touched on tensions among some activists within the Black Lives Matter movement itself by quoting comments given by Hawk Newsome, a BLM activist in New York, who told the New York Post he thought the nonprofit's finances should be investigated. New York Post Aside from getting record numbers of feet on the street in demonstrations across the country in the spring and summer of 2020, Black Lives Matter organizers told The Associated Press that it brought in $90 million in donations to the nonprofit organization associated with the movement, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. told The Post story published on April 10 also reported Cullors went on a "million dollar real estate buying binge" and claimed she spent $3.2 million "snagging four high-end homes." published When you read past the headline and leading language, the Post story really describes two modest home purchases, one in South Los Angeles (formerly known as South Central) and the other in Inglewood. Both homes are in working class communities and were purchased for $590,000 and $510,000 respectively. Like most homes in Los Angeles, they have appreciated in value since their most recent purchase date. South Central The Post also reports Cullors' wife bought a home in rural Georgia and that the couple "eyed" luxury property in the Bahamas, without purchasing it. Was this a "buying binge"? We don't have enough information from the Post story to answer questions like: Were these homes consecutively purchased, lived in and sold? Were other parties involved in the reported purchases? Were they lived in by family members? Did any of the addresses crop up due to errors in public records databases? errors Black Lives Matter was founded in 2013 by three women: Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi. It was originated as a response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. But the phrase and its underlying civil rights cause have been the rallying cry for a national racial justice movement in response to the killing of Black people by police, and racism embedded in the criminal justice system. killing The spring and summer of 2020 saw the movement's biggest demonstrations in its history, with millions of Americans braving the COVID-19 pandemic to take to the streets, touched off by the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. As the movement reached critical mass and thus scored social and political wins, which included major companies affirming their commitment to racial justice and the election of progressive leaders, Black Lives Matter has also been a regular target for right-wing media and commenters. target media commenters Cullors resigned from the foundation in May 2021, stating the move had been in the works for more than a year. She told the Associated Press she was resigning to further focus on a new book and the TV deal with Warner Bros. In late August 2021, Cullors was appointed to the Los Angeles County Arts Commission. told appointed Updated to include Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation statement. Updated to note Cullors left her post with the non-profit organization in May 2021 and was appointed to the L.A. County Arts Commission in August 2021. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. In early May 2020, Facebook users reported seeing a headline circulating on the social platform stating, "Pelosi To Seniors: 'You Are Not Entitled to Social Security! It's Gone!'" The story was published on the website BIZ News. website The story contained a number of sensational and false statements such as, "Socialist politicians in the Democratic Party have tried for years to eliminate Social Security, a source of income relied upon by millions in this country just to get by in their old age." While the story didn't actually contain the quote in the headline above, the copy did include an Ebenezer Scrooge-like statement falsely attributed to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:To be clear, no record exists that Pelosi made this remark or the quoted remark in the BIZ News headline. However, a similar, also-fake quote about Social Security that was attributed to Pelosi circulated in April 2020.  similar,  This item is nothing more than an example of junk news. We therefore rate this claim  Speaker.gov."Pelosi Statement on 84th Anniversary of Social Security."
14 August 2019. This article has been updated and its rating has been changed from "True" to  Following initial publication, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby provided us with this statement: "By prior arrangement, Secretary Austin divested his entire Raytheon portfolio on Jan. 22, 2021, immediately following the Senate vote confirming him as the new Secretary of Defense. Snopes initially received no comment on a Feb. 24, 2021 inquiry about his divestment from Raytheon, and as such, our initial article relied on a divestment timeline provided by Secretary Austin in filings with the Office of Government Ethics. On Feb. 19, 2021, an identically phrased claim went viral on multiple social media accounts, including that of a sitting congressman, after it was posted by a self-described MAGA "global recruiter" with the Twitter handle "@johnnyrwhitsett." The claim references an alleged $285 million defense contract awarded to a company that U.S. President Joe Biden's secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, "owns over [$1 million] of stock in."  posted   The memes are referring to Austins past financial interest in the military contractor Raytheon. While Austin served on the Board of Directors of Raytheon and once held shares in the company given to him through executive compensation, the statement that he was invested in the company during the time he was in office is, according to Pentagon Spokesperson John Kirby, false. The specific monetary value in these memes appears to have their origin in a viral Feb. 17 YouTube video that  despite discussing the value 85 million in the actual clip  was shared by its creator with the higher number on Twitter. That video derived the number $85 million from an announcement by the State Department  which does not award defense contracts  approving a proposed sale of missiles produced by the company Raytheon to the government of Chile. YouTube video announcement does not Austin's divestment aside, senators have raised concerns over the close relationship between Raytheon and Austin in general. In correspondence with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Austin pledged to extend his recusal from Raytheon Technologies for four years and to not seek a position on the board of a defense contractor or become a lobbyist after his government service. raised concerns It bears mentioning that Mark Esper, who served as former President Donald Trumps secretary of defense, served as Raytheons vice president of government relations directly before his confirmation. When asked by Warren during his confirmation hearing if he would recuse himself from decisions involving Raytheon, he refused. served refused From 2016 to the day of his confirmation as secretary of defense on Jan. 22, 2021, Austin served on the Board of Directors for Raytheon or a company, United Technologies Corp, that would merge with it. Prior to his confirmation, according to documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics, Austin held vested deferred stock units and vested and unvested restricted stock units in Raytheon. merge documents filed These are special forms of stock-based executive compensation. Deferred stock units are shares inaccessible to the owner until after that person has left the company. Restricted stocks are ownership shares of a company subject to special Securities and Exchange (SEC) restrictions intended, among other things, to prevent premature selling. Both options are often given on a vesting schedule, meaning that the full amount of the stock compensation is not available to that executive (i.e., it remains unvested) until the executive has worked at the company for a certain period of time. Deferred Restricted Austin sold these stocks the day of his confirmation. In his White House financial disclosure form, Austin indicated the value of his vested deferred stocks to be between $500,000 and $1,000,000 and the value of his vested restricted stocks to be between $50,000 and $100,000. Austin, a DOD spokesperson told us, "will file a Periodic Transaction Report and a Certificate of Ethics Agreement Compliance which will both be publicly available on the OGE website." disclosure form Raytheon performs a prodigious amount of work for the Department of Defense. Based on an analysis performed by Snopes, in the first month that Austin served as its secretary, the DOD granted at least $569,756,040 in new contracts or contract modifications to Raytheon or various divisions of Raytheon branches: an analysis $19,950,844 $290,704,534 $49,195,531 $53,861,439 $7,580,414 $8,377,372 $8,220,193 $74,238,334 $13,208,180 $14,921,191 $29,498,008 As part of Austin's ethics pledge, he stated that he would "not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of Raytheon." We asked the DOD how this arrangement would work, given the large volume of business conducted with Raytheon. In response, a spokesperson told us: ethics pledge Through a formal screening arrangement, the Secretary has directed his staff to identify all matters that involve Raytheon as a party or a representative of a party, as well as any matters that could directly and predictably affect the financial interests of Raytheon. Any such matters involving Raytheon are referred to the Deputy Secretary of Defense or another senior official for action or assignment. A copy of the Screening Arrangement is available in the DoD FOIA Reading Room. DoD FOIA Reading Room Because Austin divested entirely from Raytheon prior to any contract being awarded to the company under his leadership, the claim is  Updated [March 2, 2021]: Changed rating from True to False based on a late-arriving statement from Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby informing us that Austin divested entirely from Raytheon immediately after the Senate voted to confirm him. In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." When asked to list his top three priorities for California at a recent forum, Democratic candidate for governorAntonio Villaraigosaresponded: I think weve got to start with the economy, the economy, the economy. The former mayor of Los Angeles acknowledged strong economic growth in some places, but made it clear that not all of California is growing together. Villaraigosa went on to make an eye-opening claim about how many California cities rank among the poorest in the nation. Seventy-seven of the top 300 cities with the highest poverty rate are in our state, Villaraigosa said at theforum, hosted on June 6, 2017 in San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California. Villaraigosa makes his claim at about the 6:45 minute mark in this video by the Public Policy Institute of California. We know the state has struggled mightily with poverty. As an example, we ratedTruea claim by Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes in January that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when comparing states and considering cost-of-living. At 20.6 percent, Californias poverty rate in 2015 was well above the national average of 15.1 percent, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report called theSupplemental Poverty Measure. Floridas 19 percent poverty rate ranked second. For a two-adult, two-child family in California, the poverty threshold was an average of $30,000, depending on the region in the state, according to a2014 analysisby Public Policy Institute of California. With this in mind, we decided to fact-check Villaraigosas assertion that California is also home to one-quarter of the nations poorest cities. Governors race Villaraigosa is amongseveral prominent Democratscompeting to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others include California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a former professional football player. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See our Tracking The Truth governors race fact-checkshere. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. Our research Villaraigosas spokeswoman said his poverty claim draws on a 2015 report by the National Resource Network calledHidden in Plain Sight: Why California's Economically Challenged Cities Matter. The network was created by the Obama Administration to develop innovative solutions to American cities to help them address their toughest economic challenges. Its study listed 77 economically challenged cities in California, ranging from big metros such as Los Angeles, Sacramento and Oakland to small ones like Lodi, Delano and Watsonville. It defines economically challenged as having at least one of the following characteristics: -- More than 9 percent of residents remained unemployed as of 2013 -- More than 20 percent of adults are living in poverty -- Population decline between 2000 and 2010 reached 5 percent Nationwide, it found nearly 300 such cities. Californias count equals about one-quarter of those. We wondered, however, whether cities listed as economically challenged (due at least partly to a 2013 jobless rate) could also be considered as currently having the highest poverty rate, as Villaraigosa described them this week. Had Villaraigosa stretched the truth or perhaps conflated two separate descriptions of economic hardship? Staff at the National Resource Network, including the studys lead author, did not immediately return requests for comment. Experts weigh in Ann Stevens director of the Center for Poverty Research and a professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, reviewed the study and Villaraigosas claim at our request His statement is not accurate in terms of the poverty rate, Stevens told us. Thats because the study labeled many of these cities as economically challenged because of their 2013 jobless rate, which is different than the poverty rate in 2013 or the poverty rate on average today. We found nearly half of the 77 cities described as economically challenged qualified for that label not because their poverty rate was above 20 percent, but because of their high jobless rate in 2013. In fact, the poverty level for at least some of these cities was closer to or below the national average. At that time, many cities in California were still struggling with high unemployment due to the Great Recession, Stevens added. But thats a temporary measure of economic hardship, not a permanent one. Caroline Danielson, who researches poverty at the Public Policy Institute of California, said many of those cities are no longer struggling with unemployment. Los Angeles, for example, now has a jobless rate of 3.9 percent down from 9.7 percent in 2013, she said. Danielson said theres no comparable ranking of every American city, large and small, by poverty rate. If there was, she said: I dont believe that California would be quite so overrepresented as we found in this report. Thats not to say that California has no high poverty cities. Along with pointing to the study, Villaraigosas spokeswoman said the candidate would still consider the 77 cities in the study to be among those nationally with the highest poverty rate - certainly well above the average - and that is what makes them economically challenged. Thats not the same as Villaraigosas original statement that all 77 rank nationally among cities with the highest poverty rate. Our ruling Candidate for California governor Antonio Villaraigosa recently claimed: Seventy-seven of the top 300 cities with the highest poverty rate are in our state. He relied on a study that grouped  77 economically challenged cities in California among nearly 300 such cities in the nation. But it used data from four years ago, when many cities were still recovering from the Great Recession. Villaraigosa made it sound as if these cities are still experiencing the same level of hardship. Also, experts on poverty said the economically challenged label isnt the same as Villaraigosas description of these cities as among the poorest in the nation. Nearly half the cities on the studys list qualified for that label not because of their poverty level. Many, in fact, had poverty rates below the state average. Instead, they qualified because they had a high unemployment rate in 2013. The jobless rate in many of those cities has improved considerably since then. Villaraigosa touched on a real problem in California: Poverty remains widespread and entrenched. But he mischaracterized the results of a study and painted a darker picture of economic hardship in California than the facts bear out. We rate Villaraigosas claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.