Are there financial ties between President Trump and Saudi Arabia?
On 2 October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared during a visit to Saudi Arabia's consulate in Instanbul, Turkey. Although foul play was suspected, the Saudi government at first denied that any harm had been done to the journalist. Then they began releasing conflicting accounts, beginning with the claim that Khashoggi died accidentally in a "fistfight." Ultimately, the Saudis acknowledged that evidence provided by Turkish investigators pointed to his being slain in a "premeditated" attack, which they said was undertaken in a "rogue operation" not authorized by the Saudi royal family. Two senior government officials were dismissed, and 18 Saudi nationals allegedly involved in the murder were arrested. President Trump was criticized in the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi's disappearance for his apparent reluctance to hold the Saudis responsible for the incident. "We want to find out what happened," he said. But he also maintained that the United States' relations with the kingdom were "excellent" and he would not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite calls from members of Congress to do so. Various commentators, including Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas, suggested that Trump's official dealings with Saudi Arabia are "compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest": suggested His business interests -- past, present, and future -- make it impossible for him to contemplate the kind of consequences that the Saudis deserve. In 1991, when Trump was $900 million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess. Trumps other princess, Ivanka, is married to Jared Kushner, who has deep ties to the crown prince. In 2015, when asked about his relationship with the Saudis, Trump said: I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. As recently as December 2016, Trump owned companies in Saudi Arabia, as he sought to build a hotel there. Three days after Trumps inauguration, lobbyists working for the Saudi government funneled $270,000 directly to the Trump Organization by booking rooms at his Washington hotel. More recently, Trumps flagging Manhattan hotel got bailed out thanks to a lucrative visit from none other than the Saudi crown prince. It raises the disturbing possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with abduction or murder because the president is beholden to Saudi money. Trump responded by tweeting that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia: tweeting For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter). Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  That same day, Fox News Research (a Fox News Twitter account that regularly posts newsworthy data) tweeted a list highlighting some of Trump's business relationships with the Saudis: tweeted Trump & Saudi Business:1991: Sold yacht to Saudi Prince2001: Sold 45th floor of Trump World Tower to SaudisJun 2015: I love the Saudis...many in Trump TowerAug 2015: "They buy apartments from me...Spend $40M-$50M"2017: Saudi lobbyists spent $270K at Trump DC hotel  Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  Shortly afterward, Trump's tweet and the Fox News tweet were combined into a meme and unleashed on Facebook:   The meme presented the Fox News tweet as a refutation of Trump's, but although each of the former's statements can be confirmed via reliable sources, they don't necessarily disprove President Trump's claim that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. The sticking point (and the reason we're rating the claim a mixture of true and false) is that the term "financial interests" usually denotes the ownership of property or investments in a given place, company, or industry. We have found no evidence that either Trump or Trump Organization (the umbrella company operated by Trump's sons, Donald Jr. and Eric), currently owns property or investments in Saudi Arabia. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the Trump Organization was pursuing plans to open businesses in Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016, but the Associated Press reported in October 2018 that the companies had been shut down by the time Trump took office: reported Shortly after he announced his run for president, Trump began laying the groundwork for possible new business in the kingdom. He registered eight companies with names tied to the country, such as "THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor LLC" and "DT Jeddah Technical Services," according to a 2016 financial disclosure report to the federal government. Jeddah is a major city in the country. "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015, the same day he created four of the entities. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." The president's company, the Trump Organization, said shortly after his 2016 election that it had shut down those Saudi companies. The president later pledged to pursue no new foreign deals while in office. In a statement this week, the company said it has explored business opportunities in many countries but that it does "not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia." There is no question that Trump has profited from business dealings with the Saudis, however. Let's take the items in the Fox News Research list one by one: Fortune reported in 2017 that Trump, facing financial difficulties in 1991, sold a yacht he purchased from the Sultan of Brunei in the 1980s to Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. reported The Associated Press reported that the Kingdom of Saudi purchased the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower in New York City in 2001, "the biggest purchase in that building to that point." reported During a 16 June 2015 speech at Trump Tower announcing his presidential candidacy, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day. I love the Saudis. Many are in this building." At a campaign rally one month later, he said: "I like the Saudis; they are very nice. I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff -- all kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions." speech said At a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama in August 2015, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." said The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2017 that Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., received payments amounting to roughly $270,000 for services provided to lobbyists working for the Saudi government. Although Trump had announced earlier in the year that any Trump Organization profits from foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury, the company did not respond to the Journal's questions about what would be done with the Saudi payments, which were made through a third party. reported Despite his not owning businesses, properties, or investments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Trump has clearly, and by his own admission, profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from business dealings with the Saudis, and over a long period of time. We reached out to the Trump Organization for comment but received no reply. Beavers, Olivia.  "Saudis Spent $270K at Trump Hotel Amid Lobbying Efforts: Report."
  The Hill.  5 August 2017. Condon, Bernard et al.  "'I Love the Saudis': Trump Business Ties to Kingdom Run Deep."
  Associated Press.  16 October 2018. Fahrenthold, David A. and Jonathan O'Connell.  "'I Like Them Very Much:' Trump Has Longstanding Business Ties with Saudis, Who Have Boosted His Hotels Since He Took Office."
 The Washington Post.  11 October 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D.  "Trump's Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances."
  The New York Times.  17 June 2017. Klaas, Brian.  "Jamal Khashoggi's Fate Casts a Harsh Light on Trump's Friendship with Saudi Arabia."
 The Washington Post.  10 October 2018. Mangan, Dan.  "Trump Claims He Has 'No Financial Interests in Saudi Arabia' --- But He Makes Lots of Money from It."
  CNBC.  16 October 2018. Myre, Greg.  "The Big Overlap Between Trump's Global Holdings and U.S. Foreign Policy."
  NPR.  22 November 2016. Orden, Erica.  "Saudi Disappearance Puts Spotlight on Trump's Business Ties."
  CNN.  12 October 2018. Smith, Geoffrey.  "This Is the 420-Foot Yacht Donald Trump Wanted -- Before He Filed for Bankruptcy."
  Fortune.  13 February 2017. Tau, Byron and Rebecca Ballhaus.  "Trump Hotel Received $270,000 from Lobbying Campaign Tied to Saudis."
  The Wall Street Journal.  6 June 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "What's at Stake in the Trump Administration's Ties to the Saudis."
  CBS News.  12 October 2018. Wong, Edward et al.  "Trump Calls Relations with Saudi Arabia 'Excellent,' While Congress Is Incensed."
  The New York Times.  11 October 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Events in the Khashoggi Case."
  25 October 2018. CBS News.  "Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Presidential Candidacy."
  16 June 2015.
FACT CHECK: Has FEMA warned Americans that a catastrophic natural disaster will devastate the Pacific Northwest in 2015?      Claim:  FEMA confirmed that a massive natural disaster will level the Pacific Northwest in 2015.   Example:   [Collected via Twitter and e-mail, July 2015] There is convincing footage that a huge earthquake is set to hit  the Pacific Northwest soon and that FEMA is preparing for it. Many of the  details were supposedly printed in the New Yorker magazine. US emergency agency (FEMA) prepare for mega-quake in Pacific Northwest, estimated to kill at least 13,000 people... https://t.co/xf8VGZ8s6T https://t.co/xf8VGZ8s6T  PacificGuardians (@FatuTauafiafi) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   FEMA AttendeeWarnsOfComingEvent Bank Holiday, Social Unrest And Martial Law! Scientist Warn https://t.co/VKoglRrAkJ pic.twitter.com/7RqAJizi17 https://t.co/VKoglRrAkJ pic.twitter.com/7RqAJizi17  Tamra (@emortal_the) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   FEMA Meeting Attendee Warns Of Coming "Event" - Bank Scientists Warn Of "Worst Natural Disaster In History Of Nation" https://t.co/Nx0u7zKQPY https://t.co/Nx0u7zKQPY  ICU (@constancevaugh1) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015   Origins:  During the summer of 2015, doomsday prophecies seemed to become relatively fashionable; in addition to the ongoing conspiracy jambalaya of Jade Helm 15, rumors of a giant comet also captivated the purveyors and viewers of caterwauling YouTube videos. (Martial law and FEMA death camps were rumored to be invariable components of your apocalypse of choice.) Jade Helm 15 giant comet Martial law FEMA death camps invariable Many (ostensibly unrelated) things fueled the multiple, ambient conspiracies; among them was a 20 July 2015 piece in The New Yorker titled "The Really Big One," subtitled "An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest[, the] question is when." That article focused on the Cascadia subduction zone, a convergent plate boundary spanning Vancouver Island to Northern California, and one of its most frequently quoted portions stated: piece Just north of the San Andreas, however, lies another fault line. Known as the Cascadia subduction zone, it runs for seven hundred miles off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, beginning near Cape Mendocino, California, continuing along Oregon and Washington, and terminating around Vancouver Island, Canada. When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the westlosing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater. The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMAs Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast. Inarguably, the prognostications were grim and the tone suggested a sooner-rather-than-later timeline: In fact, the science is robust, and one of the chief scientists behind it is Chris Goldfinger. Thanks to work done by him and his colleagues, we now know that the odds of the big Cascadia earthquake happening in the next fifty years are roughly one in three. The odds of the very big one are roughly one in ten. Even those numbers do not fully reflect the dangeror, more to the point, how unprepared the Pacific Northwest is to face it. The truly worrisome figures in this story are these: Thirty years ago, no one knew that the Cascadia subduction zone had ever produced a major earthquake. Forty-five years ago, no one even knew it existed. Naturally, the article's alarming claims moved swiftly across social media sites and blogs (particularly those with a primary interest in apocalyptic scenarios and looming martial law). On 18 July 2015 the unreliable web site All News PipeLine published an article titled "FEMA Meeting Attendee Warns Of Coming 'Event' - Bank Holiday, Social Unrest And Martial Law! Scientists Warn Of 'Worst Natural Disaster In History Of Nation,'" followed by an article (published to the website of Facebook page "Operation Jade Helm and Beyond") titled "FEMA Warns Of Mega Natural Disaster Expected To Hit The U.S. Northwest!!! Martial Law Not Far Behind..." article website Facebook page The latter article primarily rewrote the former, but added that "FEMA has outlined some of what they expect to happen here" and that "[t]his is expected to happen in the next 6 months or so in the Pacific Northwest." All News PipeLine's article linked to the website of conspiracy theorist Steve Quayle. In a 17 July 2015 "alert," Quayle seized upon interest in The New Yorker's predictions and built upon it with a claim that he received additional information from an unknown source linked to FEMA: Steve Quayle I have a long time friend, who is in law enforcement in one of the Jade Helm states. He is totally logical and factual (sheeple) while I think more out of the box. I have tried to help him see whats going on, but he always calls me a nutjob with too much time on my hands. I just got a phone call from him, he has been attending FEMA Training, and he is now having a meltdown after what they learned. The FEMA team revealed: -There is going to be an "Event" within the next 6 months.  -The nature of the "Event" is believed to be a Natural Disaster, such as a Solar Flare, but could be something else.    As the excerpted portion illustrates, Quayle purportedly spoke to a "friend who is in law enforcement" (that we'll presume exists for the purposes of this discussion) and not anyone directly affiliated with FEMA. Moreover, the "event" his friend described is either a natural disaster or not a natural disaster (and in no way necessarily linked to the July 2015 article published in The New Yorker). From there, other websites conflated the article about the Cascadia subduction zone and a vague claim from a fellow who hawks conspiracy and doomsday stories for a living. Quayle's claim didn't even hint at then-ongoing discussion of a possible future earthquake affecting the Pacific Northwest, it simply also referenced a natural disaster (or something else entirely). It's true that the subject of a West Coast faultline was featured in an article in The New Yorker, and it's even true that FEMA Region X Kenneth Murphy surmised that in the event of such a calamity much of the Pacific Northwest "would be toast." However, Murphy's comments were clearly not made on the basis of information pertaining to the certainty of any such looming disaster, and are akin to observing that if a tree fell on your car it would likely sustain serious damage. In the complete context of Murphy's remarks, he clearly referenced a "what if" scenario and not a current situation for which FEMA was actively preparing. FEMA has not issued any warnings about seismic activity or any other natural dangers that line up with the claims in the linked articles. And while geologist Chris Goldfinger discussed the possibility of a "mega-quake" in a July 2015 article, neither Goldfinger nor any other entity stated with certainty that such an event would occur in 2015 or any other point in the near future. In fact, research (on which Goldfinger worked) completed in 2012 determined that there is a "40 percent chance of a major earthquake in the [affected] region during the next 50 years." Chris Goldfinger Last updated:  21July 2015 Originally published: 21July 2015 UPDATE 6:15 p.m., Sept. 26, 2014:We revised the story below to note that at a Sept. 23, 2014, forum Wiley said almost 1,000 workers have six-figure salaries. This additional information, pointed out by a reader, didn't change our rating of the claim we checked. Rich rich rich! City of Austin employees strike it rich! Sorry. We got carried away by a claim at a forum for Austin City Council candidates thrown by the League of Women Voters and the City of Austin. According to anAustin American-Statesmannews storyposted online Sept. 16, 2014, a council candidate, lawyer Jay Wiley, said the day before theres room in the city budget to staff offices in each of the 10 newly created single-member districts. Wiley, running in District 6 in Northwest Austin, also said at the forum: Weve got, actually, over 1,000 city employees that make six-figure salaries. Does that add up? We failed to reach Wiley to learn the origin of his figure. Meantime, city spokeswoman Melissa Alvarado emailed achartindicating that as of Sept. 1, 2014, 879 workers earned from $100,089 to $304,657. To follow-up queries, Alvarado sent a chart listing 24 vacancies at that time for positions paying $100,000 or more. So, you could say the city had 903 positions paying six figures at the time Wiley spoke. Alvarado said the city then had 11,852 workers, which means its $100,000-plus earners accounted for 7 percent of its workers. Plus, more workers were heading into the six-figure class shortly. To our inquiry, Alvarado said 3.5 percent raises taking effect Sept. 21, 2014, (before the start of the new fiscal year in October) would result in 1,162 employees earning $100,000 or more. At that time, she said, the city expected there to be another 36 open positions paying more than $100,000 each. So at that time, the city projects, 1,198 positions will pay six figures. Alvarado said the city had 12,780 positions budgeted for fiscal 2015. We also looked at which city workers make the most. Peruse that sampling below. Top-Paid Employees City of Austin Sept. 1, 2014 NAME TITLE/DEPARTMENT SALARY Larry Weis General Manager/Austin Energy $304,657 Marc Ott City Manager $269,755 Paul Hinchey Medical Director/EMS System $246,688 Michael McDonald Deputy City Manager $220,126 Cheryl Mele Chief Operating Officer/Austin Energy $211,494 Kerry Overton Deputy General Manager, Shared Services/Austin Energy $211,494 Sue Edwards Assistant City Manager $203,860 Robert Goode Assistant City Manager $203,860 Humberto Lumbreras Assistant City Manager $203,860 Anthony Snipes Assistant City Manager $203,860 Reynaldo Arellano Assistant City Manager $200,116 Art Acevedo Police Chief $199,118 Claire Hart Chief Financial Officer $206,003 Elizabeth Little Senior Vice President/Austin Energy $202,716 Jose Cabanas Rivera Deputy Medical Director, Office of the Medical Director $200,969 Source: Information provided by City of Austin, September 2014. The fullchart is here. After we initially posted this fact check, a reader pointed out thar Wiley said at a Sept. 23, 2014, forum the city has almost 1,000 workers earning six-figure salaries. Our ruling Wiley said more than 1,000 city workers make six-figure salaries. When he spoke, 879 workers earned more than $100,000, meaning he overshot. Then again, raises were about to take effect lifting workers in this pay category to 1,162. We rate the statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Bin Laden shooter Rob O'Neill was targeted in a home invasion gone awry.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] "Bin Laden Shooter Rob O'Neill Mistakenly Attacked By Street Thugs Seeking To Collect Debt From Neighbor" Seems rather far-fetched - not many Crips in Butte, MT. Origins:  On 15 December 2014, Empire News published an article titled "Bin Laden Shooter Rob O'Neill Mistakenly Attacked by Street Thugs Seeking to Collect Debt from Neighbor," claiming O'Neill, the Navy SEAL credited with firing the shots that killed Osama bin Laden, had been mistakenly targeted in a home invasion by street gang members. article According to the article, O'Neill made quick work of all five criminals: Butte Police Commissioner Bartholomew S. Harrington told members of the Associated Press in a brief press conference that the five men, part of a local street gang connected with the infamous Crips, were seeking to collect on a drug debt and invaded the wrong house, with the intended target just so happening to be the next door neighbor of O'Neill's. "Mr. O'Neill had just turned in for the night, but was awoken by a loud crash when his backdoor was abruptly kicked in. As the five thugs ran aimlessly through the home, Mr. O'Neill used silent hand-to-hand combat tactics to individually disarm them of their weapons.  Once Mr. O'Neill had taken down the five men and secured his home, he brewed a pot of coffee and called the police station. Those boys sure did find the wrong house!" commissioner Harrington said as he chuckled. The tale spread quickly across social media sites, but Empire News is one of many fake news sites responsible for the frequent hoodwinking of Facebook users. Among previous hoaxes unleashed by the site are a yarn about welfare recipients being given free cars, a claim that the state of Colorado has legalized meth, and a widely-shared story about a pending "snowmageddon." free cars legalized meth snowmageddon The site's disclaimer  page notes Empire News "is a satirical and entertainment website."  disclaimer   Last updated:  16 December 2014 In his 1948 book The Affairs of Dame Rumor, Jacobson mentions this rumor "flooded the Atlantic states in 1934" and notes the story had been published in the Boston Traveler a few years earlier: Example: [Brunvand, 1984] This teen age girl, growing up in a California coastal town, was obviously pregnant  stomach starting to swell, morning sickness, etc. She, however, tearfully insisted to her mother that she couldn't possibly be pregnant. She had never "done it" with a boy and it just wasn't possible. As time went on, however, the signs continued. Her stomach continued to grow, her appetite increased, and so forth. Her mother insisted she was pregnant. The girl insisted it wasn't possible. She was still a "good" girl. Finally x-rays were taken and the girl was vindicated. She had a large tumor in her stomach and surgery was performed immediately. To everyone's amazement the surgeons removed not a tumor but a small, live octopus that had fastened itself to the lining of the girl's stomach. What happened to this girl supposedly is really possible. Octopus eggs are microscopic in size and laid in clusters of tens of thousands. They are usually affixed to kelp at the ocean bottom by a sticky secretion. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a few could escape and float to the surface where they could be swallowed by an unsuspecting swimmer . . . Anyway, don't scoff, because the girl was a close friend of my older brother's girlfriend. Fishbein's 1930 book Shattering Health Superstitions includes the text of the Traveler piece: A London factory girl is reported to have swallowed something while taking a swim, and immediately after was seized with terrible pains. A local doctor and a specialist both failed to diagnose the case, but an X-ray examination finally showed that she had swallowed an octopus egg, which had hatched out inside her anatomy. Folklorist Jan Brunvand points out there is a traditional folk motif assigned to this type of tale:  B784.1.4  Girl swallows frog spawn; an octopus grows inside her with tentacles reaching to every part of her body. How an octopus can grow from frog spawn remains unexplained, however. There are numerous versions of the basic legend:  All of these tales might be considered variations of the "bosom serpent" legend, described by Harold Schecter as a tale in which "through some unfortunate circumstance or act of carelessness . . . a snake. . . is accidentally ingested by, or grows inside the body of, the unlucky individual, where it remains until it is expelled or in some way lured out of the victim's body." This motif remains popular in films such as Alien, which features a crew member "impregnated" by an alien creature; once the incubation period is complete, the alien lifeform is "born" by bursting out through his chest. As Schechter notes, "like the traditional, oral versions that have been popular for hundreds of years, [the] only purpose [of the birth scene in Alien] is to produce emotional response: shock, revulsion, morbid fascination." In June 2004 the Iranian daily Etemaad reported that an unnamed woman from the south-eastern city of Iranshahr had given birth to a frog. According to that paper, the woman's gynaecologist confirmed that the lady in question, whose period had stopped for six months, had undergone sonography in May which showed she had a cyst in her abdomen and that following severe bleeding, she gave birth to a live grey frog accompanied with mud. Numerous news outlets subsequently carried the story, but in the manner of reporting that an Iranian paper had run the item, not as a confirmation of the facts of the account. If the photo of the frog (as initially provided by the BBC  it was later stripped from their online article and replaced by a map of Iraq) was accurate, it disproved the theory that the purported mother of Kermit came by her amphibian pregnancy through having swum in or drunk frog spawn, because the lily pad jumper so pictured was of a species not native to Iran. In any event, it was always a case of news outlets repeating a weird story that had come to them, not of vetting the tale's claims. Humans cannot give birth to frogs, or snakes, or fish, or lizards, or octopuses  our biology rules it out.  Also told in:   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 77).  The Big Book of Urban Legends   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.  ISBN 0-393-30321-7  (pp. 110-111). The Choking Doberman   BBC News.  "Iranian Woman Gives Birth to Frog."
  27 June 2004.   Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.
  London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 74-75). The Tumour in the Whale   Fishbein, Morris.  Shattering Health Superstitions.
  New York: Horace Liveright, Inc., 1930  (pp. 90-97).   Jacobson, David J.  The Affairs of Dame Rumor.
  New York: Rinehart & Co., 1948  (p. 23). The Affairs of Dame Rumor   Schecter, Harold.  The Bosom Serpent: Folklore and Popular Art.
  Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1988. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. In vetoingHouse Bill 535, a measure dealing with how state agencies select and buy goods, Gov. Rick Perry said, Current law already requires state agencies to give preference to goods produced and grown in Texas. Perry said in apress releaseMay 25, 2013, the day of the veto, that HB 535 requires state agencies, when purchasing goods, to give preference to goods manufactured in Texas. This bill simply does not change current law. Soon after, a reader emailed us to ask: Is this truly in current law? The law that the bill would have modified is inSection 2155.444of the state's Government Code, which says that when making purchases of goods, including agricultural products, the comptroller and state agencies shall give preference to those produced or grown in this state or offered by Texas bidders. Next, the law says, goods from elsewhere in the United States must be considered. State law has contained Texas-first purchasing preferences for more than 50 years. According to a May 4, 1981, state attorney generalopinion, the Legislature created Texas preferences with a 1957 law which replaced an older statute favoring bidders who have an established local business. The1957 law, according to the opinion, created a preference for products produced in Texas as well as one for products offered by Texas citizens. HB 535, asfiledJan. 15, 2013,byRep. Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas, added manufactured to produced or grown and included a definition: Manufactured means, with respect to assembled goods, the final assembly, processing, packaging, testing, or other process that adds value, quality, or reliability. It added a requirement that the state comptroller shall promote the purchase of such Texas-grown or otherwise Texas-created goods. In the legislationsfinal version, that definition encompassed items produced as a result of a manufacturing process that alters the form or function of components in a way that adds value and transforms the parts into something different from what simply assembling the parts would have produced. Both versions also added a requirement that the state comptroller and state agencies promote the purchase of Texas goods. Ed Sills, spokesman for the Texas AFL-CIO labor federation, which supported the vetoed proposal, told us by phone that the combined effect of requiring such promotion, emphasizing manufactured goods and encouraging agencies to buy Texan, buy American could have been powerful. Current law does have preferences. It doesnt have as robust a preference as it would have if this bill had passed, Sills said. A spokesman for the state comptrollers office -- whichcounselsstate agencies on purchasing -- said by email that the state interprets the current law to cover goods manufactured in Texas. R.J. DeSilva said, Texas agencies have always considered the term produced to include manufactured goods. Therefore, the preference for manufactured goods was already being provided. DeSilva sent us a link tocomptroller procurement rulesin the Texas Administrative Code stating, Supplies, materials, and equipment are considered to be produced in Texas if they are manufactured in Texas; manufactured does not include the work of packaging or repackaging. Our ruling Perry said, Current law already requires state agencies to give preference to goods produced and grown in Texas. That holds up. Existinglawsays that when making purchases of goods, the comptroller and state agencies shall give preference to those produced or grown in this state or offered by Texas bidders. And the comptroller operates under rules that say items manufactured in Texas are considered to be produced in Texas. We rate Perrys statement as True. [green-label]Claim:[/green-label] President Obama has issued an executive ordergranting a $2,350 dollar tax rebateto every American who filed a tax return for 2014. [dot-false][/dot-false] [green-label]Example:[/green-label] [green-small][Collected via e-mail,November2015][/green-small] Some women at work were discussing the following: Apparently they saw on Facebook that, as an executive order by PresidentObama, the government is giving everyone who filed 2014 taxes a $2,350.00rebate/refund to be mailed out this month (November 12, 2015). I have lookedeverywhere (on the Internet) that I can think of. The only place I can findit is on a site called "United Media Publishing". Also, the only referenceto this that I can find on Facebook sends a person to this same article fromUnited Media Publishing. Is this true??? [green-label]Origins:[/green-label] On 14 August 2015 the web site United Media Publishing (UMP) issued an article titled "Obama Orders 2350 Dollar Tax Rebate In November" which reported that: The Obama administration has directed IRS director John Koskinen to have the agency prepare for one of the largest cash refund/rebate hand-outs in the history of the organization. The President has authorized by way of anexecutive order that a 2350 dollar tax rebate be issued to every American who filed a tax return in the 2014 fiscal year, irrespective of whether they paid tax or not. Update: A representative for the IRS confirms that the first tax rebate checks will go into the mail November 12th. WhileUnited Media Publishing's initial claim didn't attract much attention on social media, the highlighted portion in the above-reproduced excerpt breathed new life into the hoaxin early November 2015. Unfortunately for readers (hopeful that anunexpected $2,350 windfall was headed their way atChristmastime),United Media Publishing is nothing more than a fake news site, one that doesn't feature a disclaimer notice identifying its content as fake news. Prior fabricationsspread by UMP included aCharles Mansondeath hoax and a story aboutthousands of Christian couples filing for divorceinprotest of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. Charles Manson divorce  [article-meta] [green-label]Last updated:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 [green-label]Originally published:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013 An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. Claim:  A Russian man was drugged and his testicles stolen by an attractive stranger. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] There appears to be a new version of the kidney robbery articlegoing around.  kidney robbery Now the Daily Mail in the UK has just published an article about a famousRussian actor (but not showing his face, but showing his name) beingdrugged and having his testicles stolen:  Origins:  On 26 February 2015, the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article titled "Married TV actor wakes up to find his testicles have been STOLEN after he is drugged in Russian bar by attractive blonde working for organ traffickers." As the example quoted above observed, the article bore many hallmarks of long-circulating urban legends involving organ theft (often as the result  article urban legends of an illicit or otherwise immoral sexual encounter).  According to the article, 30-year-old married Russian celebrity Dmitry Nikolaev met a blonde stranger in a bar in Moscow. After he (presumably) pursued an extramarital encounter with the woman, he awoke to unexplained and severe pain in the area of his groin and was later informed by doctors that his testicles had been removed (without his knowledge or consent). Moreover, the site claimed, the surgical procedure was performed by a skilled individual and likely resulted from a larger organized crime outfit trafficking in human organs. Neither the Daily Mail nor the Russian news source to which it referred provided any date, specific location, or other verifiable details of the alleged crime. The narrative stated that the man was transported to a hospital and only learned after an examination that his testicles had been removed, which does not sound particularly likely given even a layperson's ability to detect whether or not he currently possesses testes. It's possible that the news source intended to imply the man's testicles were replaced with prosthetics, but the nature of his injury was not detailed: referred They kissed and had some more beer and after that the actor remembers nothing,' said a police source. He woke up next day at a bus stop, feeling acute pain, and with blood on his trousers. Rushed to hospital, he was told that his testicles had been removed and that 'it was done like proper surgery by someone with a medical education'. The operation was conducted in a 'skillful way', said police, who believe his beer was spiked by an unknown drug. As discussed elsewhere on this site, the usefulness of such a donation (willing or not) is debatable. It's highly unlikely a crime such as the one described truly constitutes a profit center for gangs in any country, as testicles are neither a commonly purchased medical commodity nor a commonly transplanted organ, and organs of any description are delicate and difficult to transport. donation Finally, the manner in which the site partially obscured the purported victim's identity was atypical and suspicious. While the man's face was pixelated, his full name, age, and general location were utilized by the Russian news outlet from which the Daily Mail sourced the story. The translated article from which the claims arose concluded with a claim that the man's wife remained ignorant of his experience, which is rather implausible given that his full name and other identifying details were released by the media: Interestingly, the wife of the injured man is still convinced that her husband was in the hospital because of surgery on the genitals caused by a serious illness. Last updated:  26 February 2015