Permanent Closure at Walt Disney World Due to Hurricane Irma?
On 13 September 2017, an article claiming that Disney World was permanently closing the Fort Wilderness Campground due to damage sustained from Hurricane Irma was posted to the prank news web site BreakingNews247.com: article prank   Walt Disney has officially announced that they will be permanently closing Fort Wilderness Campgrounds due to damage exceeding over $1 Million from one estimate. This article, along with everything else published on BreakingNews247.com, is fabricated. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information.The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":Despite the article's deletion, however, the rumor continued to circulate as web sites like ViralDisney.net republished near verbatim copies of the story. These web sites are unaffiliated with Walt Disney World, which has indicated in public statements that Fort Wilderness will soon reopen.   "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook: Prank This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information. The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke": message   ViralDisney.net The Florida theme park did sustain some damage during Hurricane Irma and the Fort Wilderness campground was temporarily closed. A message on the official Disney World web site explained that the campground will likely reopen by the end of September 2017: damage message explained All Disney Resorts have begun normal operation, with the exception of Fort Wilderness Campground and Disney's Saratoga Springs Treehouse Villas.We anticipate that Disneys Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground will reopen next week, but it remains closed at this time as we clean up the property following the storm. Disney's Wilderness Lodge remains open. We anticipate that Disneys Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground will reopen next week, but it remains closed at this time as we clean up the property following the storm. Disney's Wilderness Lodge remains open.To allow Disneys Fort Wilderness to prepare the property after Hurricane Irma, all shows at The Hoop Dee Doo Musical Revue and Mickeys Backyard BBQ will be canceled up to and including To allow Disneys Fort Wilderness to prepare the property after Hurricane Irma, all shows at The Hoop Dee Doo Musical Revue and Mickeys Backyard BBQ will be canceled up to and including Tuesday September 19th. Any existing reservations will be automatically canceled and refunded. Fox News.  "Disney World Photos Show Hurricane Irma's Damage to Parks."
  13 September 2017.
Claim:  Paul Ryan has sponsored two Congressional bills that have been passed into law. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Is it true or false that Paul Ryan managed to get only 2 bills passed during his 13 years in the House of Representatives? If true, what were they? Rumor is one of them was to name a post office after himself.  In his 13 years in Congress, Paul Ryan got only two bills passed. One was to change the name of the post office in his home town. Origins:  In August 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped as his vice presidential running mate Congressman Paul Ryan, who has represented Wisconsin's 1st district in Congress since 1999. That selection focused attention on the legislative record of Ryan, including the number of bills he sponsored that had been passed into law. According to the Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative  THOMAS information source, Rep. Ryan in his Congressional career has been the primary sponsor of two bills that have been passed and enacted as law: a 2000 bill to name a United States Postal Service facility in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and a 2004 bill to modify the excise taxes on arrows used as archery equipment.  (In the former case, the bill did not name a USPS building after Ryan himself, as mentioned in one of the examples reproduced above, but after Les Aspin, a Democratic Congressman who for twenty-two years represented the same Wisconsin district that Ryan currently does.)  During his tenure in Congress Rep. Ryan has also sponsored 73 bills that were not passed and signed on as co-sponsor of another 975 bills. name arrows In general, several thousand bills are introduced in every Congress, but only about 5% of them  roughly an average of one per Congressmember per term  are eventually passed into law.   introduced Last updated:  16 August 2012 In February 2021, during U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland as President Joe Biden's nominee for attorney general, a widely shared tweet purported to capture a startlingly frank exchange between Garland and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The tweet, posted by @Roshan_Rinaldi on Feb. 22, contained a link to a PBS live video of the hearing, along with the following text: tweet Tom Cotton: "Can you make a commitment on resources?"Garland: "I don't make commitments unless I know the facts first."Cotton: "When we confirmed Bill Barr, he was able to make a commitment on resources. Why can't you do that now?"Garland: "Because I'm not a liar"   The tweet, which has since been deleted, was widely shared on Twitter and its text contents tweeted out by several users in separate tweets. It was also shared on the popular left-wing forum Democratic Underground. On Facebook, users enthusiastically shared screenshots of it in the hours and days that followed. The following screenshot demonstrates the popularity of the post on Facebook in February 2021: several users shared shared   In reality, Garland never called former Attorney General Bill Barr "a liar." Nor did he describe him in a way that could fairly be summarized in that way. The tweet paraphrased a real line of questioning from Cotton but grossly misrepresented both the wording and tone of Garland's response. @Roshan_Rinaldi's tweet was particularly misleading because it not only misrepresented Garland's utterances in response to Cotton's questioning, but also used quotation marks, thereby presenting the exchange between Cotton and Garland as a direct quotation, which it certainly was not. During a confirmation hearing on Feb. 22, Garland, a U.S. Circuit Court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, faced questioning from Republican senators about the future of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump asked Durham to investigate whether federal investigators engaged in wrongdoing or criminality during the early stages of investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Trump gave Durham the title and powers of a special counsel.  John Durham special counsel In particular, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and later Cotton, asked Garland whether he would commit to providing Durham the resources he required in order to complete his investigation. Garland demurred, and both Grassley and Cotton pointed out (accurately) that Barr, during his confirmation hearings in January 2019, was willing to make such a commitment to continuing and resourcing the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. accurately In order to provide the full and proper account of what Garland actually said about Barr (or rather, did not say), the following are excerpted transcripts and videos of his exchanges with Grassley and then Cotton: Grassley: I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to Mueller's investigation: "It's virtually [read: vitally] important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation." Also, at that same hearing, Sen. Feinstein asked: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?" Attorney General Barr answered Sen. Feinstein with a one-word "Yes." With respect to Special Counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation? vitally Garland: Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation, as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going. I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.  Grassley: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that [means] he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position? Garland: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.   Later, Cotton followed up on Grassley's line of questioning, and the following exchange took place: Cotton: I want to return to Sen. Grassley's questions about the Durham investigation. Sen. Grassley asked you if you would commit, specifically, to ensure that John Durham had the staff, the resources and the time that he needed to complete that investigation. You said you didn't have the info yet, that you needed to speak to him, but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision  Garland: That's correct, Sir, yes. Cotton: Why can't you commit, specifically, to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? Garland: Well, again, it's because I'm sitting here and I don't have any information about what he needs, in his resources and the allocation of resources. But my  everything I know, sitting here, suggests that he should of course have those resources. Cotton: Judge, two years ago Bill Barr made that exact commitment about the Mueller special counsel [investigation]. He did not have that information, he had not consulted with the department. He was in the same posture you are. He simply said "Yes." Why can't you say "Yes" today, the way Bill Barr did two years ago? Garland: Again, my view about every investigation and every decision I make is I have to know the facts before I can make those kind of decisions. I don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, I have to be there and learn what's going on, before I can make a decision. But as I said, I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place, and to continue his investigation, was in any way wrong. Cotton: Was it wrong for Bill Barr to make that commitment two years ago? Garland: Again, as I said, Senator, I'm not going to be making judgements about my predecessors. I don't think there's any purpose in that for myself. I want you to judge me on my own record and what I do going forward. Cotton: Was it wrong for Democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that Bill Barr make that commitment two years ago? Garland: I think my answer would be the same.  As the videos and transcripts show, far from calling Barr "a liar" or saying words to that effect, Garland actually repeatedly refused openings to criticize Barr in any way. The wording presented in the viral tweet was inaccurate, and the underlying claim that Garland attacked Barr's honesty was a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. Did ODNI Photoshop the Cover of a Diversity Report? One lesson that organizations should have learned by now is not to make groups appear to more diverse than they really are by digitally editing photographs since that type of manipulation is too easy to catch: digitally editing photographs https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uw-booklet-student-added/ Unfortunately, that was one lesson the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) hadn't learned by mid-2021, when that office published their annual demographic report on Hiring and Retention of Minorities, Women, and Persons with Disabilities in the United States Intelligence Community." ODNI annual demographic report The cover to that report featured a photograph of a group of smiling, well-dressed professionals, including a woman in a wheelchair and a (presumably) visually impaired man wearing sunglasses and holding the leash to a guide dog:   A press release about the report quoted the director of National Intelligence as stating the following: press release The Intelligence Community should reflect the diverse makeup of America and demonstrate that we are fostering an environment where every professional can succeed, said Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion is fundamental to our democratic values and critical to meeting the ICs mission. This takes work every single day. We are committed to doing more to address this critical issue and accelerate our progress. There's one problem, though. The image used on the ODNI report cover was a stock photograph from the Shutterstock service, titled as representing "Portrait of Multi-Cultural Office Staff Standing in Lobby." Although the Shutterstock photo may have included women and minorities among the pictured group, it but it didn't include any persons with obvious disabilities: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-multicultural-office-staff-standing-lobby-174469094 As multiple social media users pointed out, rather than finding a more representative cover graphic to utilize for the report, someone at ODNI apparently utilized an altered version of the stock photo  a version into which the figures of the woman in the wheelchair and the visually impaired man had been clumsily added via Adobe Photoshop (or some other digital editing program) to create the requisite appearance of diversity:  The ODNI had not responded to our request for comment on the altered image at publication time, but we will update this story if we hear back. A scam that circulated on Facebook in late March 2021 claimed that anyone who shared and commented on a post would receive a bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher after validating their entry at a link included in the post (archived here). here   The text in the post read: To celebrate the great news of Walmart becoming plastic bags free by the end of 2021, we are giving one of these Walmart gift-bags to everyone who has shared & commented by 7pm 24th March,.Each person who does this will receive one of these gift bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher. After that, Validate your entry @https://bit.ly/2Qq4gwy Snopes spoke with a representative from the chain supermarket, who confirmed that the post was fake. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by Walmart. We take any fraud impacting our customers seriously and continue to implement and improve upon measures designed to help guard against various consumer scams, Walmart spokesperson Casey Staheli told Snopes. The scam may have been inspired by an announcement made by Walmart on Feb. 21 declaring it was reducing its use of plastic bags. As part of the Beyond the Bag Challenge, an international consortium of large-scale vendors, Walmart announced that stores in Mexico and Central America would go fully bagless  and nearly three-quarters of stores in Mexico had stopped providing plastic bags by December 2020. announcement fully bagless Walmart stores also launched a pilot program in Vermont by implementing a reusable bags only requirement after it banned the use of plastic shopping bags in all stores effective July 2020, reported Vermont Biz. Vermont Biz However, the retailer did not make a promise to ban plastic bags from all its stores, nor did it offer any sort of gift bag or store credit for those that shared and commented on a Facebook post. For help identifying other potential scams, Walmart encourages consumers to visit the Fraud Alerts section on its website. Fraud Alerts Correction [March 25, 2021]: Vermont's "paper bag only" requirement was updated to reflect its newly imposed reusable bag only policy. During the Republican presidential debate on his home turf of Cleveland, Ohio Gov. John Kasich touted his economic record in the state. Repeating a claim he has often made --including on his campaign website-- Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus. We decided to take a closer look. An $8 billion hole? Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011. The $8 billion figure is rounded up from a $7.7 billion gap between spending and expected revenues. It was an initial estimate from January 2011, based on the assumption made several months earlier that there would be no new revenue growth. However, revenues did grow as the economy rebounded that year, reducing the gap to between $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion -- a calculation that Kasichs budget director, Tim Keen, agreed with conceptually in a 2011 interview with the newspaper, though he took issue with some of the methodological details. Whatever the number, Kasich avoided a potential misstep when he spoke of this in the debate as a hole rather than a deficit, since Ohio, like most states, cannot run an actual budget deficit. The $8 billion gap is more accurately described as a projected shortfall rather than a deficit. A $2 billion surplus? This figure is clearer. The states Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. Does Kasich deserve credit? Its not unreasonable to give Kasich some credit for the states improving economic fortunes -- he is a governor, after all, and he forged the states fiscal policy in concert with the Legislature. But its important to remember that he took office at the very beginning of the national economic recovery, and as the national economy has improved, so has Ohios. When Kasich was inaugurated in January 2011, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 9.2 percent -- exactly the same as the national rate. Today, the national unemployment rate is 5.3 percent and the rate in Ohio is 5.2 percent. So Kasichs timing has been fortunate. Our ruling Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus. Its possible to argue over whether the initial amount should be $6 billion rather than $8 billion. But Kasich didnt pull that figure out of thin air, and it certainly was high by historical standards. He also used the term hole, which is more appropriate than deficit would have been. Meanwhile, the $2 billion figure seems solid. Still, its worth noting that Kasich spoke a little grandly when he said that I did it, since the states fiscal improvement got a big assist from the national economic recovery. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Viral recitations of politicians' achievements and failures have become standard election-year fare on social media, and, like the campaign talking points on which they appear to be based, are long on declarative statements and short on nuance.  One of many such lists devoted to President Barack Obama touts his economic accomplishments in office. While the statements it contains are basically true, it behooves the reader to bear in mind that 1.) it's a short list, and 2.) most of the items benefit, accuracy-wise, from a little added context. "Biggest job growth in manufacturing since the '90s" It's accurate, as far as it goes, to say that Obama presided over the largest spurt of manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, but how remarkable is that, really? As illustrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph below, the six-year period from 2010 to 2016 saw the largest sustained increase in manufacturing jobs since 1998 (more than 800,000 added), but what it also shows is how deep a trough manufacturing labor had fallen into over the previous decade, and how depressed it remains to this day, despite a modicum of improvement.  "Auto industry breaking sales records"  Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold. statistics "Clean energy production doubled" Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours). statistics "Unemployment cut in half" True. Between 2010 and 2016 the unemployment rate dropped from about 10 percent to about 5 percent, as illustrated in this Bureau of Labor graph:   Which is indeed a 50 percent drop, although, once again, our starting point for comparison is the peak of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was at a 20-year high. Perhaps the more impressive statistic is that at 5 percent, the current unemployment rate is below the historical median since 1948 of of 5.5 percent. "Deficit cut by three-quarters" True, provided that the starting point for comparison is fiscal year 2009, when Obama's stimulus program pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion. Given that the 2015 deficit was $439 billion, a drop of about three-quarters from what it was in 2009, the claim holds water. If, however, one compares 2015 to 2008, when the deficit was about $459 billion, the reduction is relatively inconsequential. "Stock market tripled" True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low. up 220 percent "And he did it all with Republicans obstructing" What's in question here is not so much whether the Republicans did or did not obstruct  whether you call it "obstructing" or "opposing Obama's liberal agenda," they've done so throughout his administration  but to what extent Obama "did it all." It's standard political practice for the incumbent to claim credit for economic good news (and blame opponents for the bad), but how much credit does Obama actually deserve for this list of "accomplishments"? On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes." writes Some of the early moves by the Obama administration clearly helped get us to where we are right now, especially the government being the spender of last resort after the crisis, said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at Standard & Poors. But the Federal Reserve also played a very big role. And this is also the natural shape of a slow recovery from a deep financial crisis and recession that is finally getting some traction.  Burden, Melissa and Wayland, Michael.  "Auto Industry Sets All-Time Sales Record in 2015."
 The Detroit News.  5 January 2016. Long, Heather. "Alarmed by Stocks? 5 Charts Break it Down."
 CNNMoney.  25 August 2015. Smith, Ben. "An Obama Boom?"
  Politico.com.  9 January 2015. "Energy in Brief."
 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 5 May 2016. 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 President Donald Trump made public a letter from his tax attorneys on May 12 saying Trumps tax returns from the past decade contain no undisclosed income from Russian sources. That same day, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., found what was a too-good-to-pass-up irony about the firm Trump used to write the letter. Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal, Murphy said in a May 12tweet. The post was certainly popular -- it has been retweeted 56,000 times as of the writing of this fact-check. It also elicited an eye-rolling .GIF from Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn. Law firm@POTUSused to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal. Given the continued interest in possible links between Trump and Russia, we decided to look into Murphys statement. Trumpstaxlawyersare partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Morgan Lewis, which employs some 2,000 attorneys in 30 cities around the world, including 40 lawyers and staff in Moscow. In the May 12letter, Trumps attorneys generally downplayed the presidents ties to Russia, and said Trumps tax returns from the past decade contain no undisclosed income from Russian sources. Murphy is correct that Morgan Lewis was once named the Russia Law Firm of the Year. This award was bestowed in 2016 by Chambers & Partners, a reputable source of law firm rankings, which cited the firms work in Russias energy, finance and technology sectors. Murphys spokesman, Chris Harris, also pointed us toan itemon Morgan Lewis website trumpeting the accolade, calling it a prestigious honor that recognizes its Russia offices excellence in client service, strategic growth and other achievements. Elsewhere on Morgan Lewis website the firmboastsabout its Moscow office, saying Our lawyers are well known in the Russian market, and have deep familiarity with the local legislation, practices, and key players. So Murphy is basically right on the facts: (1) Trump did use a letter from his Morgan Lewis tax attorneys to downplay Russia ties, (2) Morgan Lewis was named Russia Law Firm of the Year, and (3) the firm has extensive Russia ties. That said, it would be wrong to conclude that by hiring Morgan Lewis, Trump shares the firms extensive Russia ties. Thats unproven. A Morgan Lewis spokesman toldABC Newsnone of the firms attorneys have handled any business dealings for Trump in Russia. The spokesman added that Trumps tax attorney, Sheri Dillon, has never been to Russia and does no work there. The reality is, beyond a laugh line, theres not much people should read into Murphys statement. By the same logic, for instance, Trumps tough talk toward Germany would potentially be undermined by the fact his tax attorneys work in a firm that operates an office inFrankfurt. And unless Murphy were willing to credit Trump forMorgan Lewis progressive telecommuting policyto help working parents, his position would lack coherence. Murphy said, Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal. While any suggestion Trump shares the law firm's extensive ties is unproven, Murphy has the basic facts correct. The tax attorneys Trump has used to minimize his Russia ties are partners at Morgan Lewis, the 2016 Russia Law Firm of the Year, which boasts significant work in Russia. The firm, however, says that Trumps lawyer has done no work in Russia. We rate Murphys statement Mostly True. Scam:  The FBI is offering "ATM Cards" to help victims recover money from Nigerian scammers. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Federal Bureau Of Investigation ATM CARD PAYMENT NOTIFICATIONFrom: Federal Bureau Of Investigation (robertmueller@fbi.gov)Sent: Mon 9/01/08 9:24 AMReply-to: atm_card_centre303@hotmail.com  Anti-Terrorist and Monitory Crimes Division.Federal Bureau Of Investigation.J. Edgar. Hoover Building, Washington D.CTelephone Number : ( 202 )-324-3001  ATTN: BENEFICIARY  This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank Of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Mr Frank Nweke, none officials of Oceanic Bank, none officials of Zenith Bank and some impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation agents. During our Investigation, it came to our notice that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment. So therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry Of Finance on your behalf and they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your payment in the total amount of $800,000.00 USD which will be deposited into an ATM CARD which you will use to withdraw funds anywhere of the world. You now have the lawful right to claim your funds which have been deposited into the ATM CARD. Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in this transaction, you are now to be rest assured that this transaction is legitimate and completely risk-free as it is our duty to Protect and Serve citizens of the United States Of America. All you have to do is immediately contact the ATM CARD CENTER via E-mail for instructions on how to procure your Approval Slip which contains details on how to receive and activate your ATM CARD for immediate use to withdraw funds being paid to you. We have confirmed that the amount required to procure the Approval Slip will cost you a total of $550 USD which will be paid directly to the ATM CARD CENTER agent via Western Union Money Transfer / MoneyGram Money Transfer. Below, you shall find contact details of the Agent whom will process your transaction: CONTACT INFORMATION NAME: MR. PAUL SMITHEMAIL: atm_card_centre303@hotmail.comTelephone Number : +234-808-252-6229 Immediately contact Mr. Paul Smith of the ATM Card Centre with the following information: Full Name:Address:City:State:Zip Code:Direct Phone Number:Current Occupation:Annual Income:  Once you have sent the required information to Mr. Paul Smith he will contact you with instructions on how to make the payment of $550 USD for the Approval Slip after which he will proceed towards delivery of the ATM CARD without any further delay. You have hereby been authorized/guaranteed by the Federal Bureau Of Investigation to commence towards completing this transaction, as there shall be NO delay once payment for the Approval Slip has been made to the authorized agent. Once you have completed payment of $550 to the agent in charge of this transaction, immediately contact me back so as to ensure your ATM CARD gets to you rapidly. FBI DirectorRobert Mueller. Origins:  The message quoted above represents another slightly different turn on the venerable Nigerian Scam: Rather than providing straightforward bait to Nigerian Scam  lure new victims into the scam, it seeks to re-hook those who have already been snared once with yet another false promise of easy money. The basic premise of the Nigerian Scam is that the target is offered a substantial cash reward for helping out with a transaction involving the transfer of a large sum of money (a transaction that usually needs to be kept hush-hush).  However, the transaction never takes place, and the reward is never forthcoming; instead, the target is repeatedly called upon to shell out ever-increasing amounts of his own money to clear away a variety of fictitious roadblocks (e.g., legal fees, documentation fees, customs fees, taxes, bribes).  This version of the Nigerian Scam targets those who have already participated in (or been victimized by) it, offering the lure of FBI assistance in recovering the rewards that victims were cheated out of the first time around ... all they need do is send $550 to the FBI for an "ATM CARD" that will allow them to tap into accounts holding $800,000. If the numerous red flags in the basic version of the Nigerian Scam weren't enough to warn away potential victims, this variant adds several more factors that should give anyone pause about its legitimacy:  The FBI wouldn't acknowledge that you have been participating in "illegal transactions" with foreign nationals and then turn around and reward you for having done so.  (They'd probably be hauling you off to custody and charging you with a half-dozen federal crimes.)  The FBI wouldn't be conducting criminal investigations and doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars via e-mail. (They'd be sending agents out to meet and talk with you personally.)   The FBI wouldn't help fraud victims recover legitimately owed monies and then turn around and charge them several hundred dollars to access those funds.  The FBI wouldn't be asking you to contact them by placing a phone call to Nigeria (as indicated by the "234" country code prefix to the phone number provided for "Mr. Paul Smith of the ATM Card Centre").  You'd be talking to an agent from a local or other U.S.-based FBI office.  The FBI wouldn't be collecting sensitive personal information from the public by asking them to provide that information via the extremely unsecure method of e-mailing it to a Hotmail account.  (They wouldn't be asking for or collecting this kind of information via the Internet in the first place, and even if they were, at the very least they'd be using a secure web protocol with encryption rather than plain-text e-mail, and the collection method would be tied to an FBI web site and not a commercial e-mail provider.)Last updated:  11 July 2011    Flaum, David.  "Scam Hits Sellers Over Net."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  2 March 2003  (p. G1).     Jones, Matthew.  "Beach Police Officers Warn of Fake-Check Web Scam."   The Virginian-Pilot.  9 January 2003  (p. B4).     Kades, Deborah.  "Wisconsin Residents Fall Prey to Used Vehicle, Lottery Scams."   The Wisconsin State Journal.  12 December 2002.     Kristof, Kathy M.  "Nigerian Money Con Targets Small Firms."   Los Angeles Times.  7 September 2003 ; (p. C3).     Associated Press.  "Missoula Credit Union Members Taken."   15 March 2003. Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003.