Hillary Clinton Used Hand Signals to Rig Debate?
Just when we thought we'd had our fill of debate-related conspiracies, a new one came along, this one in the form of a video purportedly documenting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt had colluded to rig the first presidential debate through a system of secret hand signals: Scratching ones face is one of the oldest signals in the book. You can be sure if this was a blackjack table and the house noticed a player making similar signals to a dealer theyd be investigated.  When the alt-right web site True Pundit shared the video, they did so along with the additional claim that Clinton had never made similar gestures in previous debates, campaign appearances, or speeches: Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clintons speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.) The above-displayed video does not provide any evidence that Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt communicated via hand signals so that Clinton could indicate to Holt when she wanted him to call on her so she could get in a "zinger." The creator of the video simply strung together several unrelated events  Clinton scratching her face, Holt making a comment, Clinton replying to Trump  and then claimed that they were somehow connected to a furtive signaling plot without providing any proof. But before we dig deeper into the video, let's look at the accompanying claims about it from True Pundit and Infowars. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades. She was the First Lady of Arkansas in 1983, the First Lady of the United States in 1993, a U.S. Senator in 2001, a presidential candidate in 2008, Secretary of State in 2009, and and a presidential candidate again in 2016. It is simply ridiculous to claim that Clinton never once touched her face during a speech, campaign rally, or debate:  Clinton touched her face during speech   It should be noted that Hillary Clinton was not the only one making these gestures during the first presidential debate:   It should also be noted that (as shown in the image at the head of this page) the two candidates were physically separated on the stage, and therefore in order to catch the supposed "signals" from Hillary Clinton, moderator Lester Holt  who didn't have the advantage of the split-screen shot presented to television viewers  would had to have been rather obviously watching her even when she was not speaking. If Donald Trump truly "dominated the early part of the debate" but then lost his advantage, the more logical explanation is that his opponent's strategy to throw him off his game simply worked as expected: strategy The quiet Mr. Trump took the first shift, presenting a general-election version of his forceful campaign persona minus the bluster, insults and defenses of his anatomy. He pushed his case firmly, hitting his campaigns focal points on the economy and trade. defenses of his anatomy But it didnt take long for Mrs. Clinton to find the other Mr. Trump under that thin second skin. Her needling began immediately. She referred to her opponent as Donald, where he pointedly called her Secretary Clinton. (Yes, is that O.K.? he asked at his first reference to her.) She referred to his starting a business with a $14 million loan from his father, which Mr. Trump preferred to call a very small loan. The digs targeted Mr. Trumps status and founding mythos, triggering his image-protection reflex. He became combative and rattled, letting his opponent lead him down rhetorical detours (at one point he revived an old feud with Rosie ODonnell) knowing that he would follow his ingrained ABCs: always be counterpunching. It was Tony Soprano vs. Dr. Melfi, TVs biggest antihero blustering against the woman who had gotten inside his head. This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator  as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often. three times
Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. As U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy suffered numerousvote losses before being elected House speaker by a deeply divided Republican party, many noticed a particular moment with Rep. GeorgeSantos, whowas already under fire for fabricating much of his life story while campaigning for office. On Jan. 5, 2023, on the third day of voting for House speaker, Santos was seen flashing a signal with his left hand that many interpreted as being the "white power" sign. numerous Santos under fire  A number of our readers sent us messages asking if Santos indeed flashed the "white power" signal, which looks like an "Okay" sign defined by the forefinger and thumb making a circle shape with the remaining three fingers splayed out. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the sign was adopted "first by white nationalists, and then by 4chan trolls intent on 'triggering the libs'." Numerous alt-right figures have adopted this symbol over the years, but there are also many instances where innocuous hand gestures were incorrectly interpreted in this way. We have debunked such instances, as well. Southern Poverty Law Center debunked So did Santos intend to use such a symbol? In the C-SPAN video below he is standing with his arms folded, and when it is his turn to vote, he raises his right hand to vote for McCarthy, his left still folded under his chest with the sign visible (watch the5:53:30 mark).It appeared on numerous re-watches that he could conceivably have just been holding his left hand that way, and ended up waving his right hand instead of the left. He walked away very quickly after voting, putting both his hands down to his sides.  Voting for House speaker took around four days and numerous attempts, during which time Santos signaled his support more than once. The photograph below shows Santos casting his vote on Jan. 4, 2023, where he is not using the symbol. Jan. 4, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) On Jan. 5, 2023, he was seen casting his vote again, this time with his left hand making an "Okay" sign. Jan. 5, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) In both instances, he is clearly intending to cast a vote. In the second instance, we do not know for certain if he is making a white power signal with his left hand. We have reached out to a member of his team, but so far Santos has madeno comment on this. made This did not stop Democrats from criticizing him for making the hand gesture. U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, also from New York, said: Democrats said    MSNBC host Joy Reid addressed this with the right-leaning media outlet The Bulwark's Tim Miller, saying that Santos appeared to "throw the white-power sign." addressed Miller in turn responded "[...]he might have been holding his fingers together. There's plenty of bad things about George Santos without me reading into his body language." After McCarthy was finally elected as House speaker on Jan. 7, 2023, Santos was also sworn into office. In a statement, Santos said: "Now is the time to put political differences aside, stop the finger pointing, and start delivering results. The work of Congress is not about my personal life, this is about delivering results for my constituents, finding bipartisan solutions, and reversing abysmal policies that have caused some of the worst inflation and crime in our nation's history." said We cannot determine Santos' intentions without hearing from Santos directly, and even then he has shown in the past that his word cannot fully be trusted. As such we rate this claim as "Unproven." Evon, Dan. "Do Pics Show Blackburn Flashing 'White Power Sign' in US Senate?" Snopes, 11 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blackburn-white-power/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "George Santos Sworn into Office after Selection of House Speaker." News 12 - The Bronx, 7 Jan. 2023. https://bronx.news12.com/george-santos-sworn-into-office-after-selection-of-house-speaker. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Did George Santos' Website Incorrectly Announce He Was Sworn in to US House?" Snopes, 4 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-santos-sworn-into-house-error/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "Is That an OK Sign? A White Power Symbol? Or Just a Right-Wing Troll?" Southern Poverty Law Center, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Shoaib, Alia. "George Santos Accused of Flashing White-Power Symbol during House Speaker Vote." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-white-power-symbol-speaker-vote-2023-1. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Sprunt, Barbara, and Susan Davis. "Kevin McCarthy Is Elected House Speaker after 15 Votes and Days of Negotiations." NPR, 7 Jan. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147470516/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.- Elect George Santos Casts His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-casts-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454230622. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.-Elect George Santos Cast His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-cast-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454474088. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. In May 2021, an old and false claim was resurrected about Facebook friends. It claimed that copying and pasting a message with the code "OO5251839" would show a Facebook user's posts to old friends. It would also purportedly allow users to see posts from friends that maybe hadn't appeared in their News Feeds for years. old and false claim message The purported Facebook code began with two letters: "OO5251839." Some variations may have started with zeroes: "005251839."   Posts that soared in popularity in mid-2021 began with: "Thanks for the tip to circumvent Facebook  OO5251839 Works!!" Thanks for the tip to circumvent Facebook...OO5251839 Works!! I have a whole new profile. I see posts from people I didn't see anymore. Facebook's new algorithm picks the same people - around 25-who will see your posts. Hold your finger anywhere in this post and click " copy ". Go to your page where it says " what's on your mind". Tap your finger anywhere in the empty field. Click paste. This is going to circumvent the system. Hello new and old friends! Hello Drop a single hello, thanks! PLEASE SAY HELLO IF YOU SEE THIS. Hello to all! However, this "OO5251839" message had no impact on the Facebook algorithm. Some Facebook users might have thought that the "OO5251839" message worked if they received comments under their posts. However, if this was the case, the explanation is simple. might have thought worked received comments The copy-and-paste message asked friends to say "hello." It would not be a huge surprise that some of the poster's friends saw the message and responded "hello." It's also likely that the more comments a post received, the better it might rank in the News Feeds of friends. As more "hello" comments racked up, it's probably going to show to more friends. Copy-and-paste Facebook rumors have been circulating about as long as Facebook has been around. The "OO5251839" message was not the first time that Facebook users copied and pasted posts that were said to avoid or protect against unwanted aspects of the Facebook platform. For example, in the past we covered a false claim about "copy and paste" and "don't share" messages. We also reported about a dubious warning in regards to Facebook and Instagram purportedly making all posts public. copy and paste" and "don't share making all posts public In sum, the "OO5251839" Facebook message did not circumvent Facebook's algorithm or change anything about a user's Facebook friends. In May 2022, a fake quote was attributed to former congressman Trey Gowdy in an attempt to hype the film "2000 Mules" on social media:    This is not a genuine quote from Gowdy. It doesn't appear on Gowdy's social media feeds, nor does it appear in any genuine news articles about "2000 Mules" or Gowdy.  Gowdy confirmed to The Associated Press that this quote is fake and that he had never seen or even heard of the film: Both assertions are completely false. Never said it. Didnt attend. Never heard of the movie much less seen the movie. So, its false at every level. confirmed to The Associated Press "2000 Mules" is a documentary released in May 2022 by Dinesh D'Souza, a right-wing political commentator who received a pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump after pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws in 2014. The film attempts to further the discredited premise that the 2020 election was marred by widespread voter fraud.  pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump A number of news organizations looked into the movie's claims and found them to be sorely lacking. The Washington Post said the film offered the "least convincing election-fraud theory yet." The Associated Press wrote that there were "gaping holes" in the film's claims, and the Denver Post wrote that the film used "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data." Washington Post said the film Associated Press wrote Denver Post wrote The movie has received little to no attention from mainstream conservative media outlets.  mainstream conservative media outlets Analysis | 2000 Mules Offers the Least Convincing Election-Fraud Theory Yet. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/2000-mules-offers-least-convincing-election-fraud-theory-yet/. Accessed 12 May 2022. PolitiFact - The Faulty Premise of the 2,000 Mules Trailer about Voting by Mail in the 2020 Election. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/. Accessed 12 May 2022. Press, Ali Swenson |. The Associated. Fact-Checking 2000 Mules, the Movie Alleging Ballot Fraud. The Denver Post, 8 May 2022, https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/. Staten, Adam. Dinesh DSouza Slams Tucker Carlson, Newsmax over New Documentary Coverage. Newsweek, 9 May 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/dinesh-dsouza-slams-tucker-carlson-newsmax-over-new-documentary-coverage-1704863. Women: Youve come a long way, but still have a ways to go, according to the National Womens Law Center.The NWLC revisited the gender wage gap debate last month, citing recently released federal statistics showing the difference between the earnings of men and women in the United States. Using the data, the organization devised a state-by-state ranking of womens median earnings compared with mens.In every state, women are paid less than men, the NWLC said in a Sept. 21 news release about its analysis. The liberal-leaning advocacy organization for womens issues also cited the national gender wage gap showing that women are paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men.The organizations leaders are using the analysis to push Congress to enact the Paycheck Fairness Act to address the disparity. That legislation -- sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and supported by the Obama administration -- is intended to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963: proposed guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with a goal of eliminating inequities. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives in January 2009 but failed twice in the Senate, in November 2010 and in June 2012.The gender wage gap issue has been studied for years and has been targeted through legislation including the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Still, the NWLC statement about all 50 states seemed broad. Was there the possibility that in at least one state the wage gap either didnt exist or favored women? And what factors were considered to determine the gap?The two most common sources for this type of gender wage data are the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. NWLC used data from the Census Bureaus 2011 American Community Survey, released last month, to calculate wage gaps in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.Using the Community Surveys statistics, the NWLC calculated the wage gap for each state as the ratio of female and male median earnings for full-time, year-round workers. (The Community Survey classified full-time, year-round workers as those being 16 years old and over and who usually worked 35 hours or more per week.) The wage gaps are presented as the number of cents women are paid for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. Using this methodology, the organizations statement is accurate.For example, Georgia ranked 13th out of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., in order of the highest wage gaps by jurisdiction. In Georgia, the wage gap was 80.7 percent, meaning that for every dollar a man earned, women earned just under 81 cents. Georgia males earned $43,902 and women earned $35,438 annually, a difference of $8,464.In that ranking, Washington, D.C., fared the best, with women making about 90 cents for every dollar men make. In Wyoming, where the wage gap was the largest, women earned 66.6 cents for each dollar earned by men.The NWLC analysis also includes the often-used statistic that the national gender wage gap is 77 percent, or more clearly: For every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 77 cents. The national wage gap calculated by the organization is based oncensus datathat  tracks full-time, year-round worker wages regardless of occupation.PolitiFact has examinedwage disparityclaimswith varying outcomes. Supporters of wage gap legislation typically cite the 77-cent figure without clarifying that the gap does not take into account other factors that could influence the figure, including occupation, employment longevity and education. The census data shows the widest gap, but other data, including hourly wages tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, yields smaller differences. UsingBLS data, women are paid 86 percent of the median hourly wages of men.So, does the NWLCs claim hold up? Based on Census Bureau data, it does appear that women are paid less than men in every state and Washington, D.C. In considering other data and influences, the wage disparity amount, specifically the national wage gap, is smaller, but still exists.We rate it True. At 1:30 am on the morning of 23 March 2002, a 41-year-old dental surgery student was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer while pulling his car from a parking lot in front of a D.C.-area apartment complex: killed In the middle of a night in March 2002, Brian Hundley and a woman were in a car parked outside an apartment complex in Washington, D.C. Off-duty Metropolitan Police Department Officer Marcus Gaines tapped on the window of the car as he walked past. Hundley, who was in the drivers seat, began to drive the car in the direction of Officer Gaines. Officer Gaines pulled his gun, yelled police, and ordered Hundley to stop and get out of the car. Hundley complied and exited the car. According to Officer Gaines, while Hundley was standing outside the car, Hundley suddenly moved his right hand from behind his back and began lunging toward Officer Gaines, who was about 10 to 15 feet away. In apparent self-defense, Officer Gaines shot and killed Hundley. The Hundley family brought a civil suit against Gaines, another officer, and the District of Columbia in three separate areas: First, a tort law claim of assault and battery based on the officers fatal shot; second, a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on excessive force; and third, a tort law claim of negligence based on Gaines initial stop of Hundley. civil suit A jury awarded the Hundley estate $242,000 based on the the third claim, ruling that Hundleys death was the result of a the officers negligence in performing this initial traffic stop. Both sides were unhappy with the ruling, according to the Washington Post's 2004 coverage of the trial: coverage The jury found that Officer Marcus Gaines was negligent in the steps leading to the shooting of Brian Hundley, 41, in a Northwest Washington parking lot. But it rejected the family's bid for more damages, finding that Gaines did not abuse Hundley, violate his civil rights or inflict emotional distress upon him when he killed him with a single gunshot to the chest ... Although the verdict was a victory on paper, Hundley's relatives and lawyers called the amount of the award a bitter insult to Hundley's life and said they will appeal. "It really defies logic," said Carl Hundley, who brought the wrongful death suit on behalf of his late brother. "They found the [traffic] stop was negligent, they found my brother didn't threaten the officer. One is left to wonder if they are just deciding his life had no value." The family's attorney, Gregory L. Lattimer, called the award a "travesty ... A 41-year-old man dies at the police's hands without threatening him or doing anything wrong, and his life is worth $241,000. How are the police allowed to get away with this?" ... A spokeswoman for the D.C. attorney general's office, which defended the department, said that the jury erred in siding with the family and that the city might seek to overturn the award. On appeal, both the defendants (Officer Gaines et al) and the plaintiffs (the Hundley family) challenged that ruling, as described in court documents: described Hundleys estate challenges the assault and battery and excessive force verdict, arguing that the jurys verdict was inconsistent with the written interrogatory answer. Defendants challenge the judgment for plaintiffs on the negligence claim. This appeal was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the opinion was written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who later became President Trump's controversial nominee to the Supreme Court.  controversial The crux of the appeal argument centered on jury inconsistency. In the original trial, the jury was asked to rule on the three issues brought to the court and, in what is known as an interrogatory jury question, on the reliability or truth of Officer Gaines' version of events: In addition to asking the jury to render a verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims, the judge also instructed the jury to answer a written interrogatory: Do you find that Brian Hundley was shot after placing his right hand behind his back and then making a lunging motion toward Officer Marcus Gaines? ... The written interrogatory tracked Officer Gainess testimony regarding the apparent self-defense shooting. The jury answered No. Both the lawyers representing Gaines as well as the lawyers representing the interests of the Hundley family pointed to this fact as a reason for appeal, as jury inconsistency is a valid grounds for appeal under in Federal Law. In the Hundley familys case, they argued that the jurys written interrogatory response is inconsistent with the jurys findings for defendants on the assault and battery and excessive force claims. Gaines et al, on the other hand, pointed to the finding as a reason to reject the damages awarded to the Hundleys by the jury, as their verdict with respect to negligence relied on a narrative the jury themselves said was not truthful. Kavanaugh agreed that the jury verdict was inconsistent: Two distinct versions of events were presented to the jury. The jury could conclude either that Officer Gaines shot Hundley in self-defense as described by Officer Gaines, or that he shot Hundley without justification. In making their cases to the jury, both sides agreed that liability turned on which version of events the jury believed ... Yet the jury found for defendants [Gaines et al] on the assault and battery and excessive force claims while simultaneously answering a written interrogatory indicating that the jury did not believe Officer Gainess version of events. The two answers cannot coexist; they make no sense in the context of the evidence presented in this case. Ultimately, Kavanaugh rendered a 180-degree shift on both sides of this argument. He ruled that because the negligence claim relied on a narrative deemed false by the jury, that that charge and the damages awarded because of it should be overturned. This aspect of the decision has led to the online narrative that a jury found that a cop lied [but] Brett Kavanaugh threw out the verdict:   While this meme expresses a factually accurate statement, it tells only a portion of the story. Using the same logic that prompted the reversal of the negligence charge, Kavanaugh also overturned the earlier rulings that did not hold the officer liable for assault or excessive force, remanding that aspect of the case for a new trial:  new trial We agree with Hundley's estate that the jury verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims was inconsistent with the jury's answer to the written interrogatory. We agree with defendants that the negligent stop, as a matter of law, did not proximately cause the shooting death and thus cannot justify the damages for the shooting death. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for a new trial for Hundley's estate on the assault and battery and excessive force claims. It is uncertain if the Hundley family sought a retrial after this ruling or reached a settlement with the defendants. (An email to the lawyer who represented the Hundleys in this matter was not immediately returned.) Regardless, Kavanaughs ruling did have the effect of reversing a cash settlement given to the Hundley family, but it also allowed for a new trial on first two claims the Hundleys had lost during their initial trial. U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  No. 05-7152 & 05-7161"
  24 July 2007.
 Tucker, Neely.  "Family Sues in Police Slaying."
  The Washington Post.  6 April 2002.
 Leonnig, Carol D.  "$242,000 Award Ordered by Jury In Police Killing."
  The Washington Post.  8 December 2004. 
 Levy-Edwards, Ariel.  "Brett Kavanaughs Poll Numbers Are Firmly in the Red."
  The Washington Post.  26 September 2018.
 U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 49. Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions."
  Accessed 1 October 2018. In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx Internet   "Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals:  authorized 2015 commemorate The Zero Euro is a souvenir banknote with authorized printing by the European Central Bank (ECB) and is on queue to be a popular in 2017 banknote collector markets. Its origins stem from France in 2015 after Richard Faille, creator of popular French currency souvenirs, decided to create euros that promote tourism. The banknotes are printed at a private fiduciary facility and they share many of the same characteristics of a real Euro except that they are marked as 0, hence the name, and are tested to ensure they cannot enter circulation as legitimate financial currency. The front of all zero euros is the same and it includes a white zero followed by the Euro sign to denominate no financial value. Then (from left to right) Brandenburg Gate, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Manneken Pis and the Mona Lisa. The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3: bill On 5 May 2018 the city of Trier celebrates the 200th birthday of its famous son Karl Marx and on this occasion we have a bill from Trier Tourismus und Marketing GmbH. Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency: acknowledged Norbert Kthler, Geschftsfhrer der ttm, sagt zu dem Null-Euro-Schein: Das Souvenir setzt sich spielerisch mit der Marxschen Kapitalismuskritik auseinander. Und natrlich passen die Null-Euro-Scheine auch hervorragend zu Marx als Geldscheinmotiv. Norbert Kthler, Managing Director of TTM, says about the Zero Euro note: "The souvenir playfully deals with Marx's critique of capitalism. And of course, zero-euro bills also fit perfectly with the Marx motif." Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy. Sacramento Brie Numis Magazine.  "Zero Euro Banknote Creator Richard FAILLE Strikes Again!"
  25 June 2017. Lokalo.de.  "'Das Geld Wird Abgeschafft!'  Trier Bietet Zum 200. Geburtstag Von Karl Marx Einen Null-Euro-Schein An."
  17 March 2018. Shortly after Donald Trump asked his supporters on to raise their hands and pledge that they would vote for him in the 2016 Presidential election(drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany), an image purportedly showing President Obama making a similar requestfrom a crowd began circulating online. While the image is real, it does not show President Obama asking his supporters to pledge allegiance to him. This photograph was takenin Columbus, Ohio in November 2008, and shows a crowd raising their hands after Obama asked how many people in the audience made less than $250,000 per year: taken People raise their hands as Democratic presidential nominee U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il) asks the audience how many of them make less then $250,000 dollars a year, as he speaks during a campaign rally at Ohio State House November 2, 2008 in Columbus, Ohio. Obama continues to campaign against Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as Election Day draws near. A video on PBS showed President Obama asking the audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000:   Let me just see a show of hands. How many people make less than $250,000 a year? Raise your hands. All right, now, I want you to be very clear here. Here are the facts. There was another report in the New York Times this morning that laid out the fact that I give much more relief to middle-income people and also that I will not raise taxes for anybody making under $250,000 a year, not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. The middle class doesn't need a tax hike. I want to give you a tax cut. So don't be confused by what John McCain says. My tax rates will be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. In February 2020, Rush Limbaugh announced he had been diagnosed with "advanced lung cancer," prompting widespread reflection on the controversial and influential conservative talk radio host's career, as well as renewed scrutiny of his past pronouncements. diagnosed In light of Limbaugh's lung cancer diagnosis, some of his detractors suggested that a measure of irony was at work, given his previous statements on smoking and nicotine. In particular, some social media users shared the following quotation, attributed to Limbaugh: shared "There is no conclusive proof that nicotines addictive... And the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease." Social media users posted several memes containing the same quotation, including the following AZ Quotes graphic: posted several memes AZ Quotes   The statement first emerged in 1994, when the left-leaning non-profit organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) published an in-depth examination of several dozen false and misleading claims made by Limbaugh on his radio and television shows, in his books, and elsewhere. The July/August edition of FAIR's newsletter Extra! contained a report with the headline "The Way Things Aren't  Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality." report In the "Weird Science" section of the eight-page article, FAIR highlighted the following claim, made by Limbaugh during the April 29, 1994, episode of his radio program "The Rush Limbaugh Show": section "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...[or with] cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease." FAIR refuted those assertions as follows: Nicotines addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koops 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual." By that time, Limbaugh was already a leading conservative voice in American media, and his radio show was syndicated to hundreds of stations across the country. FAIR's expos made a splash and garnered news coverage by major outlets including The Associated Press. The Associated Press The lengthy magazine article later formed the basis for a book entitled "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error," which was published in 1995 and debunked more than 100 of Limbaugh's falsehoods.  book One of the book's authors, Steve Rendall, told Snopes the tape recordings he had made of Limbaugh's radio broadcasts during that era had not survived the intervening 26 years, and therefore could not be consulted. Similarly, we did not find any official transcript of the April 29, 1994, episode. (Limbaugh's website features an archive of thousands of recordings and transcripts of his shows, but it only stretches back to the year 2000).  However, Limbaugh effectively confirmed the authenticity of the quotation and reiterated the same point in a lengthy rebuttal of FAIR's article, which the organization itself printed. Limbaugh wrote (emphasis added): printed My point, made over and over again in recent months, is that if nicotine is really a terrible drug then Congress should just call it a terrible drug and ban it outright. The fact is that nicotines addictiveness and whether or not it is a drug is, contrary to FAIRs assertion, a source of tremendous controversy  so controversial that The Washington Posts lead editorial on July 2, 1994 dealt entirely with this issue. "[F]ood and drug commissioner David Kesslerhas begun an effort to determine whether nicotine-containing cigarettes meet the laws definition of a drug. If they do, the Food and Drug Administration has the duty to regulate them if cigarettes are a drug, and if they cant be shown in their present form to be safe and effective  which a drug would have to be in order to be sold, and which is not very likely  then what does the government do?" In saying that "nicotine's addictiveness ... is ... a source of tremendous controversy," Limbaugh was effectively reiterating the claim that "there is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive." In his rebuttal, he also did not dispute in any way that FAIR's quoting of him was accurate. So while we cannot consult the original audio recording or an official transcript to verify whether Limbaugh's exact wording was as FAIR presented it, we can confirm that FAIR gave a proper presentation of Limbaugh's views on that specific issue, because the radio host effectively restated them shortly afterwards, and never disputed the wording presented by FAIR.  Limbaugh's views on the addictiveness of nicotine have since changed. In a July 2004 episode of his radio show, he said nicotine was "the most addictive drug, substance, whatever, on the planet," but argued that it might have other health benefits. In September 2019, he again described nicotine as "the most addictive drug on earth," but argued in favor of electronic cigarettes on the basis that the liquids they use do not produce the carcinogens produced by traditional, combustible tobacco cigarettes.  said described Limbaugh himself was often photographed smoking cigars and earlier in life smoked cigarettes, though he said he quit the cigarette habit in the 1980s. Limbaugh himself was often photographed smoking cigars Elber, Lynn. "Rush Limbaugh Says He's Been Diagnosed With Lung Cancer."
  The Associated Press. 4 February 2020. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. "The Way Things Aren't -- Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality."
  Extra! 1 July 1994. The Associated Press/The News-Press. "Liberal Group: Limbaugh is Leading 'Reign of Error.'"
  29 June 1994. Rendall, Steven; Naureckas, Jim; Cohen, Jeff. "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error."
  The New Press. 1 May 1995. Limbaugh, Rush. "Limbaugh Responds to FAIR."
  Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. 28 June 1994. Limbaugh, Rush. "Demonized Nicotine May Smoke Diseases."
  19 July 2004. Limbaugh, Rush. "'Experts' On TV Really Don't Have to Know Anything Anymore."
  18 September 2019. Republicans primary objection to the COVID-19 and economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress is that it spends relatively little on the disease itself. In a speech on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the $1.9 trillion package known as theAmerican Rescue Planwas loaded with pet projects that had nothing to do with the pandemic or economic recovery. All kinds of liberal wish list items that would do nothing to help American families put COVID behind them, McConnell saidFeb. 24. Just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. McConnells focus on 1% for vaccines caught our attention. His staff said he drew on the words of the Democrats themselves when they unveiled a key section of the sweeping bill. The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., highlighted a handful of items in the packagein a news release, including $14 billion for vaccines, $46 billion for testing, contact tracing, and mitigation, and $25 billion to reduce health disparities across the country. The nonpartisanCongressional Budget Officeand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budgetuse the $14 billion figure. However, there are different ways to add up the numbers. The same Democratic-controlled committee that provided the $14 billion figure came out a few days later with a factsheet thatuses an amountof $20 billion. And they note theres an additional $5 billion for advanced vaccine development. The different totals depend on what counts as vaccine spending. The lower figure in the first Democratic press release included only work at the CDC, the FDA, and ensuring a reliable supply chain to produce and administer the vaccine. The higher Democratic tally included other activities, such as sequencing the genome of virus variants and paying for health care workers to administer the vaccine. How much does this matter? In percentage terms, not that much. Even a total of $25 billion still amounts to just over 1% of the bills estimated price tag. Thats because the overall package includes big ticket items such as$422 billionin stimulus checks to individuals, $350 billion for state and local governments, and$242 billionfor expanded unemployment benefits. But in terms of dollars, theres a big difference between $14 billion and $20 billion or $25 billion. The point is, its possible to use percentages to make an amount appear small, and actual dollars to make the same amount look substantial. The most heated debate in Congress centers on how the American Rescue Plan deals with the economic damage of the pandemic. McConnells claim has more to do with the money aimed most directly at the virus and pandemic itself. In that vein, focussing strictly on vaccines leaves out a lot of the picture. The biggest overlooked piece is $46 billion for testing and other surveillance work. That work is as important as any other, said Amesh Adalja at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Better surveillance helps target vaccine distribution to certain states or communities, and is part of spotting virus mutations to improve the next generation of vaccines. There is a continuum and integration between all response activities, Adajla said. Those include testing, tracing, isolating and vaccinating. Vaccines have to make their way into peoples arms, and the legislation funds several programs to support that work, including $7.6 billion to hire 100,000 community health workers. We found different ways to add up all the spending tied directly to COVID-19. On the low end, the total is about$100 billion. On the high end, theWhite Housesays it is $160 billion, which adds items such as$10 billionin medical supplies, $24 billion in child care for health care and other essential workers, and literally dozens of smaller amounts. Depending on which line items you include, the legislation would spend anywhere from 4.5% to 8.5% of the total cost directly on the pandemics health aspects. McConnell said that in the American Rescue Plan, just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. Based on Democratic figures of either $14 billion or $20 billion for vaccines, and a $1.9 trillion overall price tag, the math is about right. The American Rescue Plan spends much more on the financial damage caused by the virus than on its health aspects alone, and McConnell picked a way to minimize the health-related spending. The statistic omits a much greater amount of spending on overall efforts to contain the pandemic. That ranges from about $100 billion to $160 billion, or between 5% and 8% of the bills total cost. His statement is accurate, but needs additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True.