Barack Obama will somehow manage to add more than $8 trillion to the national debt, which is more debt than the 43 presidents who held office before him compiled together.
Compared to immigration and terrorism, the growth of the federal debt may not be quite as big a subject for Republicans running for president this year. But it never went away entirely. In a Feb. 5, 2016,Medium postabout his approach to Social Security, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush reiterated a talking point that many Republicans have used before. Barack Obama will somehow manage to add more than $8 trillion to the national debt, which is more debt than the 43 presidents who held office before him compiled together, Bush wrote. Its been awhile since we last checked a claim of this sort, so we decided to take a closer look. Bush phrased his claim carefully, and it largely holds up by the numbers. Its also important to note, though, that Obama isnt the only one responsible for the growth of the federal debt. Running the numbers We first turned to the U.S. Treasury Departments Debt to the Penny calculator, which allows you to track the federal debt on a daily basis. The website lists two kinds of debt -- publicly held debt and gross federal debt. The difference is that federal debt is calculated by taking the amount of publicly held debt and adding to it the debt that is held by the government. These are typically IOUs between one governmental entity and another, such as the money owed by the general treasury to the Social Security trust fund. On Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, the public debt stood at about $6.31 trillion. By the day Bushs column ran, it stood at about $13.67 trillion. Thats an increase of $7.36 trillion, which is short of the $8 trillion Bush mentioned. But remember that Bush said Obamawill addthat much on his watch, which can be reasonably interpreted to mean the amount by the end of Obamas second term. If the debt continues to rise at the same pace it has increased over the past seven-plus years, it will end up at nearly $8.4 trillion when Obama leaves office. Using this measurement, then, Bush is right that Obama will see the debt increase by north of $8 trillion on his watch, and that this amount will exceed the amount accumulated by the previous 43 presidents ($6.31 trillion). Bush isnt correct, however, using gross federal debt. Using the same method of estimating, Obama should see an increase of $9.51 trillion in gross federal debt by the end of his second term. Thats less than the $10.63 trillion he inherited from his 43 predecessors. Experts say that either publicly held debt or gross federal debt could be used to define the term national debt that Bush uses. Still, economists told us that publicly held debt is often the most popular measurement among specialists, so we wont quibble with Bushs decision to focus on publicly held debt. The size of debt production under Obama is reinforced by looking at debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. At the end of fiscal year 2008, publicly held debt accounted for 39 percent of gross domestic product. By the end of fiscal year 2016, its expected to be almost 77 percent. Even if bad timing has exaggerated this increase  -- fiscal 2008 ended four months before Obama took office, right as the economy was collapsing -- its certainly a big percentage jump over eight years. All this said, well note a few things that are important to keep in mind. How much blame does Obama deserve?Bush makes it sound as if Obama simply flipped a switch and debt started pouring out. Obviously, its a lot more complicated than that. It isnt as if we were projecting balanced budgets and Barack Obama came into office and signed legislation increasing spending and cutting taxes, said Marc Goldwein, a budget analyst at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. In fact, Goldwein said, the January 2009 estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the debt would be around $9 trillion today. So Obama could -- at most -- be assigned the blame for adding an additional $4.5 trillion to the debt, and thats only if you absolve Congress (which has been controlled by Republicans for most of his tenure) of any responsibility, and if you blame Obama for all of the long-lasting effects of the recession that he inherited. Also, a lot of the debt comes from entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, which are increasing largely on autopilot due to demographic trends that are out of any presidents control. So while Obama does bear some responsibility for the debt accumulation on his watch, he certainly doesnt deserve sole responsibility. Bushs own party played a role, too, as did the inevitable grind of demographic trends. Any president today would be in much the same situation.Another type of inevitable grind -- inflation -- is worth factoring in as well. Every year, inflation puts an upward pressure on the scale of the debt. Inflation erodes the numbers and makes them a bit meaningless, Goldwein said. For a comparison, lets take a look at Obamas predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush -- a Republican, and Jeb Bushs brother. The Debt to the Penny calculator doesnt offer daily tallies for publicly held debt around the time of Bushs inauguration, but it does offer daily data for gross federal debt, so well use that. When Bush came into office on Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt stood at $5.73 trillion. At the end of Bushs term eight years later, the debt had risen to $10.63 trillion -- an increase on Bushs watch of $4.9 trillion. Thats not quite equal to what his 42 presidential predecessors accumulated, but its 86 percent of the way there. That increase under Bush is a little smaller than the expected increase during Obamas full tenure -- 89 percent -- but its not off by much. Our ruling Bush said that Obama will somehow manage to add more than $8 trillion to the national debt, which is more debt than the 43 presidents who held office before him compiled together. On the numbers, Bush is right, as long as you measure the nations publicly held debt, the most commonly cited statistic, and as long as you project forward to the end of Obamas tenure. But Bush leaves out some important context when he focuses the blame solely on Obama, and when he ignores that the percentage increase in the debt under George W. Bush was similar. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.
FACT CHECK:Did a Special Assistant to President Obama, Barvetta Singletary shot at a police officer in an incident of gun violence ignored by the media?  Claim: A Special Assistant to President Obama, Barvetta Singletary, shot at a police officer in an incident of gun violence ignored by the media.    WHAT'S  White House staffer Barvetta Singletary was arrested and charged with assault after discharging a gun during a domestic dispute with her boyfriend (a Capitol police officer) in August 2015. WHAT'S /UNPROVEN:  Singletary shot at a police officer because he was a cop, was trying to kill the victim, reported directly to President Obama, and her arrest was ignored by large media outlets. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, October 2015]  Assistant to president Obama shoots at boyfriend. Barvetta and her bad ass Beretta!  Kicking ass ghetto style! Don't hold your breath waiting to read about this in the mainstream media. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wondering if it is true that an Obama assistant resigned after firing a gun a police. Her name is Barvetta Singletary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A special assistant to the president the president who recently lamented that an inability to pass gun control was one of the great failures of his administration was arrested after she allegedly fired a pistol at her boyfriend during a domestic dispute. Barvetta Singletary, 37, didn't help advance her boss' crusade against gun violence when she invited her boyfriend, a Capitol Hill police officer, over to her house for sex. Afterwards, she accused him of seeing another woman and demanded to see the texts on his cellphones. When he refused, Singletary reached into her boyfriend's bag, according to the arresting documents, and pulled out the two cellphones and his service weapon, a .40 caliber Glock 23. She demanded he tell her the passwords to the phones. He refused. "Your phone is more important than me holding the gun on you," she said, shooting the couch where he was sitting. Singletary is the Obama administration's House legislative affairs liaison and was paid $125,000 a year. Let's just say she wasn't a low-level staffer. Her purposeful gun crime while working for this gun-hostile administration is more important than the time Dick Cheney accidentally shot a friend  while Dove hunting. But which one received more news coverage? Obama Special Asst Barvetta Singletary Resigns, Charged Shooting At Cop | @bob_owens | #2A | https://t.co/edXK2l9Uks pic.twitter.com/9LPguvQO5j @bob_owens #2A https://t.co/edXK2l9Uks pic.twitter.com/9LPguvQO5j  Hank Quinlan (@Quinlan_Hank) September 5, 2015 September 5, 2015   Barvetta Singletary, a special assistant to the President and the House legislative affairs liaison, was arrested last Friday after the  Berwin Kleinstein (@hakylulamupe) September 5, 2015 September 5, 2015   Origins: In early August 2015, 37-year-old White House staffer Barvetta Singletary was arrested and charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and reckless endangerment following a domestic dispute with her boyfriend. As Washington television station WRC reported, during an 7 August 2015 domestic dispute Singletary allegedly fired one shot towards the sofa on which her boyfriend was sitting (hitting the floor) after he refused to disclose the passwords to his cell phones: reported According to charging documents, Barvetta Singletary sent her boyfriend a text, asking him to come to her Upper Marlboro home for sex. After they had sex, Singletary confronted her boyfriend about the other woman he was dating. Investigators say Singletary asked her boyfriend to step outside, and they both went to his car. Once inside the car, Singletary asked to see her boyfriend's cellphones, police said. When he refused, Singletary reached into his bag and retrieved two cellphones and the victim's .40-caliber Glock 23 service weapon, charging documents state. Singletary  pulled the gun out of its holster, pointed it at the victim and said, "You taught me how to use this. Don't think I won't use it," the arrest warrant said. Once inside, she demanded the passwords to his phones, yanking the Glock from its holster and pointing it at him when he didn't cooperate, the documents said. Your phone is more important than me holding this gun on you? she allegedly said to her boyfriend, who was glued to her sofa 10 feet away. When he still refused to give up his passwords, Singletary fired one round at him that hit the floor, sending the officer running, police said.   E-mails and social media rumors about Singletary that were circulated months after the fact commonly claimed the altercation had occurred "last Friday," an ambiguity that lent plausibility to the rumor's claim the "mainstream media" suppressed reporting of the arrest (since it hadn't appeared in recent news). However, the incident was covered at the time it occurred by major mainstream news outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, the Daily Mail, the Washington D.C. Sun Times, Fox News, and the New York  Daily News. Washington Post USA Today Daily Mail Sun Times Fox News Daily News The fact that the complainant was a police officer was incidental to the story; Singletary shot at him because he was a boyfriend with whom she was involved in a romantic dispute, not because he was a cop.  And given that various news reports stated that Singletary fired a single round in the direction of the couch where her boyfriend was sitting but hit the floor, it isn't clear whether she actually intended to harm him but missed, or whether she deliberately sent the round into the floor in order to scare her boyfriend (without injuring him). Rumors commonly referred to Singletary as a "Special Assistant to President Obama," a term which is technically correct but which caused many social media users to incorrectly infer that Singletary reported directly to the President and served him personally in some sort of secretarial or administrative capacity prior to her September 2015 resignation. Senior White House staffers are granted the title "Assistant to the President," second-tier staffers are called "Deputy Assistant to the President," and third-tier staffers (of which Singletary was one) are termed "Special Assistant to the President." According to the White House's most recent staffer salary disclosure  report, there are approximately 21 employees serving in the first-tier capacity, 19 in the second-tier of White House assistants, and 59 with the title "Special Assistant to the President." disclosure Singletary had served as a as deputy chief of staff in the House of Representatives before being named as a White House staffer in June 2014: named SINGLETARY GOES TO 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE: Barvetta Singletary is moving from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. Shes leaving Capitol Hill to join the White House legislative affairs team, an administration official confirms to PI. She comes to the White House from Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburns office, where she most recently served as deputy chief of staff and policy director. She has depth on a range of issues, including: transportation, appropriations, health care, energy, ag and budget issues. She is deeply respected by members and staff on both sides of the aisle for her policy knowledge and focused but even keeled nature. She is a team player in every sense, a senior White House official said. That official added: Fun fact: She also happens to have an amazing singing voice, which she puts to use at church and among friends, when she can be convinced. On 10 August 2015, a White House spokesperson released a statement regarding Singletary's arrest: We are aware of the matter and have temporarily placed the employee in question on unpaid leave and revoked her access to the complex until we have more information. We will take additional actions as needed. For further questions, I would refer you to the Prince Georges County Police Department. Singletary resigned her White House position the following month.   Last updated: 14 October 2015 Originally published: 14 October 2015 On 21 August 2018, comedian Kathy Griffin, a frequent critic of U.S. President Donald Trump, dug up a 2015 tweet composed by Trump's long-time former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to mock the latter on the day he pled guilty to multiple counts relating to fraud and campaign finance violations. dug up Although Cohen has since deleted the tweet, a cached version remains available online: deleted cached version   The tweet was cast as ironic in light of the fact that Cohen is now the one facing prison time. On 21 August 2018, he pled guilty to eight counts, including campaign finance violations that involve paying hush money to an adult film actress and Playboy model to buy their silence on alleged affairs with Trump. He is due to be sentenced in December 2018 and faces up to 63 months in prison.  Cohen's tweet stems from the fact that Trump supporters often chanted "lock her up" about Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 election (and continue to do so despite current events), and Trump himself vowed that if elected, he would ensure that Clinton was prosecuted and punished for various alleged crimes. continue Instead, members of Trump's inner circle and campaign have been the ones charged with crimes, as Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate allegations involving Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. investigate Cohen is not the only person in Trump's political realm to have taunted Clinton during the campaign, only to end up slapped with criminal charges himself. Michael Flynn, Trump's former National Security Advisor, famously led chants of "lock her up" at rallies and later pled guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI. guilty On the same day Cohen pled guilty, Trump's former campaign chair Paul Manafort was found guilty by a jury on eight counts including bank fraud, tax fraud, and failure to disclose a foreign bank account. guilty Horton, Alex.  "Michael Cohens Tweet About Hillary Clinton and Prison Came Back to Haunt Him. Now Its Gone."
  The Washington Post.  22 August 2018. Orden, Erica et al.  "Michael Cohen Implicates Trump in Hush Money Scheme."
  CNN.  22 August 2018. LaFraniere, Sharon. "Paul Manafort, Trumps Former Campaign Chairman, Guilty of 8 Counts."
  The New York Times.  21 August 2018. Shear, Michael D. and Adam Goldman.  "Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I. and Will Cooperate with Russia Inquiry."
  The New York Times.  1 December 2017. On the evening of Feb. 11, 2024, shortly afterthe Kansas City Chiefs beat the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl LVIII,an image of U.S. President Joe Biden with glowing red laser eyes circulated online, along with the caption, "Just like we drew it up."Screenshots of the post indicated that Biden's official account on X (formerly Twitter) made the post. image Screenshots The post referenced the "Dark Brandon" meme  that is, imagerydepicting Biden as a nonhuman villain with laser eyes and is a satirical response to critics. Prior to the championship game, many right-wingconspiracy theorists made posts about Democrats secretly scheming with Chiefs tight Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift to help Biden's 2024 presidential campaign. They believed high-profile Democrats worked with the NFL to rig the season so that Kelce and Swift would end up at the highly watched event and endorse Biden there, CNN reported. Dark Brandon depicting response conspiracy CNN reported (Screenshot via Reddit) Biden's official X account did indeed share the image, a reference to the Dark Brandon meme, along with the words, "Just like we drew it up," after the Chiefs' Super Bowl victory. We thus rated the claim  The original tweet is viewable on Biden's X account and archived here. (The account is distinct from the one he uses for presidential matters, which is @POTUS.) here POTUS Just like we drew it up. pic.twitter.com/9NBvc5nVZE pic.twitter.com/9NBvc5nVZE  Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 12, 2024 February 12, 2024  The notion that Biden or Democrats had any role in the outcome of Super Bowl LVIII was nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory. We reached out to the White House asking what it meant by, or why it authored, the post  which appeared to be trolling people who believed the conspiracy theory to be true. We'll update this report if, or when, we receive a response. unfounded conspiracy theory As wereported before, critics of the president started referring to him as "Brandon" around 2021, and memes depicting him as a cartoonish villain with laser eyessurfacedaround that time, too. As a response, supporters of the president  including White House DeputyPressSecretary Andrew Bates (tweet below) attempted toreclaim the "Dark Brandon" imagery tomock people who genuinely posted it. reported surfaced White House DeputyPressSecretary Andrew Bates reclaim  According to The Associated Press, the "Brandon" name stemmed from an incident in which a reporter mistook a crowd'schant of "F*** Joe Biden" for "Let's go, Brandon" in support of a NASCAR driver. Since then, anti-Biden people have used "Let's go, Brandon" as a rallying cry, putting it on T-shirts, merchandise and more. The Associated Press "Dark Brandon" memes  i.e. images of alaser-eyed Biden  are an apparent attempt by the president's supporters to comment on the conspiratorial nature of some of his critics. Bidenreferencedthe internet trend at the 2023 White House Correspondents Association dinner. referenced Kaczynski, Andrew and Oliver Darcy. "Right-Wing Media Figures Target Taylor Swift with Absurd Conspiracy Theory Ahead of the Super Bowl | CNN Business." CNN, 30 Jan. 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/media/taylor-swift-super-bowl-right-wing-conspiracy/index.html. Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. "'Let's Go Brandon': A Collection of Stories." Snopes, 2 Nov. 2021, https://www.snopes.com//collections/lets-go-brandon/.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Navlakha, Meera. "Joe Biden's Laser-Eyed Alter Ego Returns for Super Bowl Meme." Mashable, 12 Feb. 2024, https://mashable.com/article/joe-biden-dark-brandon-meme-taylor-swift-donald-trump.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Romano, Aja. "The 'Dark Brandon' Meme  and Why the Biden Campaign Has Embraced It  Explained." Vox, 11 Aug. 2022, https://www.vox.com/culture/23300286/biden-dark-brandon-meme-maga-why-confusing-explained.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Sforza, Lauren. "Biden Trolls MAGA Republicans with Super Bowl Tweet." The Hill, 12 Feb. 2024, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4462750-biden-trolls-maga-republicans-super-bowl-tweet/.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Thompson, Alex, and Allie Bice. "Dark Brandon Begins: How WH Aides Appropriated the Meme of Their Boss as an Underworld Kin." POLITICO, 8 Aug. 2022, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2022/08/08/how-a-meme-of-biden-as-an-underworld-king-became-appropriated-by-his-aides-00050405.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. As Attorney General Chris Koster eyes the 2016 race for Missouri governor, hes pushing to share the ballot with a political twofer: a ballot proposal that would increase Missouris lowest-in-the-nation tobacco tax, which would pay for a boost in the states higher education spending. Speaking Aug. 20 at the Missouri State Fair, Koster, a Democrat, reiterated his support for the increasing the cigarette tax,telling the Columbia Daily Tribune: Since 2001, higher education in the state has been cut or allowed to erode  by 35 or 40 percent. Do those numbers add up? It takes a bit of college-boy math. The top line About three-quarters of the states higher education budget comes from the general revenue fund. The rest of the money mostly comes from the 1 cent education sales tax and other state funds. (The federal government also chips in some money  this year it was a little under $3.7 million, or 0.2 percent, of the total higher education budget.) The average annual inflation rate between 2001 and 2015, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, was 1.918 percent for Missouri and Illinois. Inflation rates vary across the country, and the Federal Reserve calculates the inflation rate by region rather than by state. In fiscal year 2002, higher education was allotted $1,153,954,522. After adjusting for inflation  which compounds year over year  thats equivalent to $1,505,546,464 today. In the most recent budget, for fiscal year 2016,$1,266,819,566is set for higher education in Missouri. Thats a 15.9 percent decrease, short of what Koster said. The bottom line If you only look at dollars, though, you miss the effect of Missouris surging college enrollment, Koster spokesman Andrew Whalen told PolitiFact Missouri. In fall of 2001, Missouris public colleges and universities enrolled143,656 full-time equivalent students. By 2014, enrollment had risen to 184,305 students. Thats a 28.3 percent increase in students. (This years totals arent in yet, but enrollment peaked in 2013, when Missouri counted 185,514 full-time equivalent students in its public institutions of higher education.) Its hard to say exactly how much money is spent on each student across the state because each school receives money directly from the General Assembly. That money is counted in the appropriations for the Department of Higher Education  but since the department doesnt dictate how that money is used, the department doesnt track how much of it each institution spends, spokeswoman Liz Coleman said. But we can still get a rough per-student funding estimate by dividing the departments budget by the number of full-time-equivalent students. Heres the math: In 2001, Missouri spent $10,480.21 per student, adjusting for inflation. Assuming this years enrollment totals track near 2014s (and theresanecdotal evidencesuggesting its not too far off), that would mean the state now spends closer to $6,873 per student. Thats a 34.4 percent decrease in higher education funding per student. There are a few caveats here: Students arent directly impacted by every dollar spent by the Department of Higher Education. For instance, the department also operates the Missouri State Historical Society, and some money also goes towards operating expenses for the department itself. The department funds scholarships, some of which go to students at private schools. And schools also draw funding from outside the appropriations process, from sources such as tuition, donations and endowments. So, the exact amount of money spent on each college student is a squishy number. But we can still confidently track how much the state contributes  which, in the context of raising the tobacco tax, is the essence of Kosters statement. Our ruling Koster said that since 2001, higher education funding has been cut or eroded by 35 percent to 40 percent. The legislature hasnt technically cut higher education funding over this time; nominally, the state has actually spent $100 million more on it. But thats not enough to keep pace with inflation. And when you factor in skyrocketing enrollment numbers, the amount of money the General Assembly has budgeted to spend on a per student basis has indeed eroded by about as much as Koster says it has. Even though Kosters statement is pretty close, it needs additional information and clarification. We rate it Mostly True. Claim:  The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax!  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax  on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit  Unions, Mutual funds,  Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open.   https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment  transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them!  While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out.  I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary:  The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions.  The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins:  Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to  votes in the first place.  The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703).  None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of  a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction  whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day  whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee:  is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users   is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction  is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself,  languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous:  Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax."  The proposal for the  Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.  Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it.  The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio.  That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191  Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?"  The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated:  22 October 2013 This might not quite be the stat heard round the world, but politicos could not resist passing along one factoid that seemed to capture the improbability of House Majority Leader Eric Cantors, R-Va., stunning defeat in his primary race against Dave Brat. Cantor's campaign spent more at steak houses than Brat spent on his entire campaign, said Chuck Todd, host of MSNBCsThe Daily Rundown. Talk about a claim made for headlines and Twitter. Eric Cantor: Burned at the steakhouse, saidRolling Stonemagazine. High steaks politics and Wheres the beef popped up in the twittersphere. Theres no disputing the accuracy of the comparison, which first showed up in theNew York Times. According to campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics,Cantor spent $168,000on fundraising events at three Virginia restaurants -- Bobby Vans Grill, Bobby Van's Steakhouse, and Blt Steak. Brat spent a little less than $123,000across the board for his campaign, according to the most recent campaign finance reports, which cover spending up until May 21, 2014. Overall, Cantor outspent Brat more than 40 to 1, according to available records, and still lost by 10 percentage points. Theres good reason for the collective astonishment -- this is a rare event. I can't think of any (case) in which the incumbent's spending advantage was so huge and he still lost, said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego. Another political scientist, John Sides at George Washington University, has a database with about 9,100 House general election contests. Sides tracks which candidate won and which spent the most money. Being outspent was a clear disadvantage. In only 10 percent of races did the candidate who got outspent actually win, Sides said. Now, this concerns general elections, not primary contests like the one Cantor lost, but Sides said the pattern wouldnt change much. Money is a very tangible perk that comes with incumbency. The Center for Responsive Politics calculated the odds of a challenger beating an incumbent going back to 1998. In the best year, 2006, challengers who spent $1 million or less, like Brat, had a 1 percent chance of winning. In every other election, their odds were much worse. Our ruling Todd said that Cantor spent more at steakhouses than Brat did in his entire campaign. The latest campaign finance reports back that up. Cantor spent $168,000 on steakhouse dinnersto Brats $123,000 spent in the overall campaign. We rate the claim True. Scam:  Thousands of people were scammed out of millions of dollars in a "miracle cars" fraud.  Origins:  Affinity fraud is a type of scam wherein members of a close-knit group are exploited via a con artist's presenting himself as one of their own kind. Such grifts work on the principle that people who are like us  folks of our particular ethnicity or religion, who hail from our hometowns, who attend the same church (or club, or school), who live in the same neighborhood, or who have weathered similar hardships and setbacks to those we have endured  can be trusted. They talk our talk and walk our walk, and since we ourselves are honest people, we assume by extension that people who are so much like us must be just as trustworthy. The nature of the bond itself matters not; what matters is the victims' being led to believe they have a great deal in common with those who are about to cheat them out of their life savings. Affinity fraud The "Miracle Cars" scam that ran between 1998 and 2002 is a good example of affinity fraud. Before it finished running its course, thousands of churchgoers had been convinced to part ways with millions of dollars, all because they trusted as one of their own the person they handed their money to. In 1998, rumors began to circulate among congregations in California that a wealthy man named John Bowers had died a few years earlier, leaving behind a $400 million estate. Part of that estate reportedly included a huge inventory of vehicles that the estate's beneficiary, Bowers' adopted son Robert Gomez, had been instructed to sell at bargain prices to Christians who acted in accordance with the Bible's teachings. The proceeds of those sales were to be used to defray the estate tax on the inherited fortune. These rumors were started by Robert Gomez, who announced the deal from the pulpit of a church in one of Los Angeles' poorest areas, and the rumors were supported by James Nichols, Gomez's roommate, whose family had long been associated with the church where the pitch was made. For as little as $1,000 each, those of strong religious faith could acquire good, reliable cars  all they had to do was pick a vehicle they wanted off the handwritten list being circulated, pay the money requested, and wait for the estate to settle before receiving their cars. Those who chose to buy were given "contracts" in exchange for their checks, cash, or money orders, but those contracts did not include mention of the vehicles' identification numbers (VINs), that information supposedly withheld under a gag order issued by the judge probating the will.  The list of available vehicles was mouthwatering: one could have a practically brand new Toyota Camry for $1,000, a Lexus for $3,000, or a Cadillac Escalade for $6,500. News of this windfall fell on highly receptive ears, many of them belonging to folks of limited means who had up until then been making do with unreliable transportation (or none at all). But thanks to this dead millionaire's generosity, in due time they would be able to get to their doctors' appointments and tend to ailing relatives across town all on their own. A little time, a little money, and a whole lot of faith would set them on their way to vehicular-assisted freedom. Word about the purported deals circulated through grass-roots Christian networks across the nation, then escaped into the secular world. As the scam rolled along, Gomez and Nichols hired two women, Corinne Conway and Gwendolyn Baker, to talk up the cars and to embroil further congregations in the scam. Churchgoers were told that God wanted to reward them and that all they needed was to believe. Congregations in various communities were worked into buying frenzies by these practiced pitchwomen, who presented themselves as fellow believers out to share good news with their brethren. Duped members of the clergy also preached the good news of the discounted cars  from their pulpits, adding another patina of credibility to the  pitch. As time went on and no cars appeared, faith in the scheme was maintained in a variety of ways. First, there was always the handy explanation that the cars were still tied up in the legal wranglings attendant to the disposition of a large estate. Court delays were therefore to be expected. Lack of information about the vehicles themselves (such as their VINs or the location where they were being housed) was explained as having to do with a gag order placed on the matter by the judge probating the will. And those who grew tired of waiting for their "miracle cars" and demanded their money back, got it  they were issued full refunds, acts that worked to frame the entire proposition as being on the up-and-up. After all, if one knew of a doubter who'd gotten his money back, didn't that prove that the people behind the "miracle cars" proposition were to be trusted? Yet all that belief to the contrary, it was a scam. There never were any cars to be had, either by those of strong faith or otherwise. There was also no deceased millionaire named John Bowers. By the time the fraud was uncovered and halted, believers across the nation had shelled out more than $20 million for vehicles that didn't exist, all on the strength of what they heard through their local churches. In all, 7000+ vehicles were "sold" during the run of the fraud, the list of available cars always expanding to include more vehicles for those determined to have them.  The two men who ran the con, James Nichols and Robert Gomez, received sentences of 24 years and 22 years respectively, while the two women they recruited, Corinne Conway and Gwendolyn Baker, received sentences of 14 months and 5 years respectively. All four were ordered to make restitution to their victims, but even after all their cash and assets were rounded up millions of dollars remained unaccounted for. On 17 March 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office posted a notice for the victims of the Miracle Cars scam, advising them that it was ready to begin mailing restitution checks to those duped by the fraud. Victims can expect refunds in the amount of approximately 6% of their total losses.  Most cons run on the basis of blinding potential victims to the underlying fraud by placing before them tantalizing mental images of great riches or extraordinary windfalls that are about to be theirs. The "miracle cars" scam had that in its promise of barely-used automobiles to be had for a mere pittance. Yet what truly caused this fraud to succeed was its "affinity" element:  the victims were especially trusting thanks to their reliance on the presumed commonality between them and those running the con. Themselves good Christians, they believed those who were telling them about the cars were also good Christians  they did not doubt that the cars existed or that there was a deceased millionaire who had left instructions that his fleet of vehicles was to be handed over to fellow Christians for a nominal fee.  In affinity scams, con artists sometimes provide returns to leaders of the targeted group first, then use those trusted individuals' names as proof of their own integrity. While no one at any level of the fraud received one of the "miracle cars," church leaders were duped into participating in the con through their own belief in the promised windfall, and a number of pastors stood before their flocks to share with their congregations the good news about the discounted vehicles. This phenomenon is part and parcel of an affinity scam: before anyone involved catches wise to the game being run, those being victimized enthusiastically recruit friends and relatives to share in the wealth, thereby themselves becoming unwitting agents of con men. "Miracle cars" victims not only had to overcome their reluctance to admit (even to themselves) that they might be getting taken, they also had to grapple with their own faith in God. Those running the game had the ones they were fleecing convinced that giving up on their "investment" was tantamount to turning their backs on God. He had a grand plan for them, and opting out of it would have demonstrated weakness in their faith, so they therefore chose to continue to believe. Barbara "lambs to the financial slaughter" Mikkelson Additional information:        'Miracle Cars' Scheme Targeted Churches, Religious Groups   (United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Missouri)  Last updated:  28 April 2008   Sources:   Harris, Sheryl.  "Scam Artists Get Close to Victims."   Plain Dealer.  15 June 2006  (p. C5).    Logan, Casey.  "God's Little Acura."   The Pitch [Kansas City].  16 January 2003.    Tubbs, Sharon.  "Duped by Faith?"   St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2002  (p. D1).    Associated Press.  "Government Alleges Four Offered Discount Cars to People of Faith."   8 July 2002.    Associated Press.  "Two Women Sentenced to Federal Prison Terms for Roles in Miracle Car Scheme."   23 October 2003.    Associated Press.  "Man Must Pay Back $12.5 million, Serve 24 Years in Car Sales Scam."   4 December 2003.    Associated Press.  "Final Man Sentenced in Miracle Cars Scheme."   11 December 2003.    Associated Press.  "Prosecutors Don't Want Convict to Benefit from Role in Miracle Cars Scheme."   24 September 2005. On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true. post archived The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is 190m$ delinquent. Court documents show a 3.4b$ loan that's in default. Trump hasn't respond to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story."  However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio showed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News didn't report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. mistrial Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. ABC News As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank  not Deutsche Bank  for his 1985 purchase of the property: Miami Herald Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel - oceanfront land next to the manor - cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?" report Bromwich, Jonah E. Trump Lawyers Call for Mistrial in Civil Fraud Case, Attacking Judge. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/nyregion/trump-mistrial-fraud-case.html. Charalambous, Peter, et al. Bank Relied on Trumps Financial Statement to Secure Loan. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/bank-relied-on-trumps-financial-statement-to-secure-loan-103895871?id=103642561. ---. Deutsche Bank Executive Set to Take Stand. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/deutsche-bank-executive-set-to-take-stand-103889913?id=103642561. Ibrahim, Nur. Media Literacy: How Can You Tell If a Post Is Satire/Parody? Snopes, 25 Feb. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464404/media-literacy-satire-parody/. Kleinman, Jeff. How Donald Trump Changed a Palm Beach Mansion. The Story behind His Mar-a-Lago Takeover. Miami Herald, 9 Aug. 2022, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article264318476.html. Spencer, Terry. Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trumps Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial. The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us The fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hung in the balance in early October 2018 as the Senate Judiciary Committee awaited the results of an FBI investigation into allegations that he had committed a sexual assault some 30 years before -- allegations that Kavanaugh angrily denied in his Senate testimony. The Senate was already sharply divided along party lines on the urgency of pushing ahead with the confirmation, with Democrats demanding a full and unimpeded investigation into the charges and Republicans accusing the Democrats resorting to delaying tactics and attempting to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Public opinion was divided as well, with 45 percent of Americans saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser (Professor Christine Blasey Ford) and 33 percent saying they believed Kavanaugh in an opinion poll taken four days after their testimonies. poll This clash of opinions played out on social media as uncivil debates raged in which each faction claimed the moral high ground and accused the other of lies and hypocrisy. A meme shared on 1 October took aim at Kavanaugh by calling out a GoFundMe account supposedly established in his and his family's name:   The implication, of course, is that as a presumably wealthy and privileged member of the Washington elite, Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need a fundraising account. Other social media users made the same point: Yes, a gofundme page has raised over $100,000 for poor Brett Kavanaugh. Thats right, some people think he needs money even though he has a job, government body guards, and will either soon be a Supreme Court justice, or he will get a six figures book deal. pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco  Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) September 29, 2018 September 29, 2018  Why are people giving money to SUPER WEALTHY #Kavanaugh & #DrChristineBlaseyFord ??? Both are RICH, should be GIVING MONEY, NOT GETTING!!! RT @thehill: GoFundMe campaign for Kavanaugh raises over $500,000 https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 #Kavanaugh #DrChristineBlaseyFord @thehill https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0  Trixy Wh (@trixywh) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018  Whether or not it addressed an actual financial need on his part (press reports suggest that Kavanaugh, though by no means poor, is less well off as several current members of the Supreme Court), a number of Kavanaugh supporters did launch GoFundMe accounts in his name in late September and early October. The most successful of these had raised more than $600,000 by 5 October. It was opened by John Hawkins of North Carolina, who runs a partisan news and opinion website called Right Wing News. reports successful John Hawkins Right Wing News In an introductory note on the GoFundMe page, Hawkins explained the thinking behind it as follows: Like many decent people from both parties, I have been disgusted by the unsubstantiated 36 year old smears aimed at Brett Kavanaugh. We live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean something; yet Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is being dragged through the mud while his family is facing non-stop death threats. This is a horrible way to treat a good man who has dedicated his life to public service. So many unethical people are giving unprovable 36 year old accusations the same weight as 6 FBI background checks, hundreds of hours of hearings and testimony under oath. It is disgraceful. What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit. All of the money collected will go to Brett Kavanaugh's family or alternately, if they refuse to accept it, to a charity of their choice. I have already reached out to a contact who should be able to put me in touch with Brett Kavanaugh's family. If he can't do it, I have plenty of other contacts who should be able to make it happen. I will update this page after I have talked with his family. I hope you will show your support for a good man who has been treated very, very badly. Hawkins posted updates chronicling his efforts to get in touch with the Kavanaugh family to discuss disbursing the funds. After many unsuccessful attempts he finally spoke to one of the judge's staffers, who told him that although the family is aware of the GoFundMe account and "extremely appreciative" of the donations, it would be a while before they could address the question of whether or not Kavanaugh, as a political appointee, can accept the money. On 30 October, Hawkins posted an update which included an "official statement" from Kavanaugh's representatives saying he would not accept the funds: "Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose." GoFundMe accounts were also started for Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The most successful of those had accumulated more than $540,000 in donations as of 5 October. A note from Ford posted on the GoFundMe page expressed her appreciation to all those contributing: accumulated I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school. On 21 November, Ford announced the closure of the GoFundMe account, pledging to donate any unused funds to trauma survivors: The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us. With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete. Adams, Becket.  "Kavanaugh Declines $600,000 Raised in His Defense."
 Washington Examiner.  31 October 2018. Albrecht, Leslie.  "Brett Kavanaugh's GoFundMe Page Raises $603,770, Surpassing $540,000 Raised for Christine Blasey Ford."
  Market Watch.  5 October 2018. Bekiempis, Victoria.  "Christine Blasey Ford to Give Donations to Charity for Trauma Survivors."
 The Guardian.  27 November 2018. Goldstein, Steve.  "Brett Kavanaugh May Become the 'Poorest' Supreme Court Justice."
  Market Watch.  14 July 2018. [29 November 2018]: Added information about the closure and disposition of the largest GoFundMe accounts in Kavanaugh and Ford's names.