300,000 Wisconsin Voters 'Turned Away' Due to Voter ID Laws?
On 10 November 2016, journalist Dan Arel published a tweet claiming Donald Trump had won the state of Wisconsin by 27,000 votes, adding that 300,000 Wisconsin voters were "turned away" by the state's voter identification laws: Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. 300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law. There is your "rigged" election.  Dan Arel (@danarel) November 10, 2016 November 10, 2016 Many social media users sought citations for both claims (one involving the margin of Trump's Wisconsin victory, and the other the number of voters purportedly turned away). As of 14 November 2016, Trump's votes in Wisconsin were tallied at 1,409,427 to Hillary Clinton's 1,382,210 (a margin of 27,257 votes):  margin  That figure made it into a New York Times article about voter identification laws and their effects on voting outcomes, but the far more attention-grabbing 300,000 voters being denied at the polls part did not. When asked about a source for those numbers, Arel tweeted:  article @SpartaDTD Not sure if I replied to you or not yet. https://t.co/O6gCIiD82W  Dan Arel (@danarel) November 10, 2016 @SpartaDTD https://t.co/O6gCIiD82W November 10, 2016 2nd paragraph. 3000,000 voters lacked the necessary ID. You read like you vote. https://t.co/qlBNsXpOOX https://t.co/qlBNsXpOOX  Dan Arel (@danarel) November 10, 2016 November 10, 2016  The article Arel cited claimed that: claimed Well likely never know how many people were kept from the polls by restrictions like voter-ID laws, cuts to early voting, and barriers to voter registration. But at the very least this should have been a question that many more people were looking into. For example, 27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the states African-American population lives, according to Daniel Nichanian of the University of Chicago. I documented stories of voters in Wisconsinincluding a 99-year-old manwho made two trips to the polls and one to the DMV on Election Day just to be able to vote, while others decided not to vote at all because they were denied IDs.  The piece in turn linked to a 29 September 2016 article on the same web site about the difficulty of obtaining voter identification in the state of Wisconsin, but nowhere in that article did the 300,000 number appear. A second link led to a 29 April 2014 Wisconsin court ruling against voter ID laws: article court ruling For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the named Defendants and Defendants officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those acting in concert or participation with them, or having actual or implicit knowledge of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjoined from conditioning a persons access to a ballot, either in-person or absentee, on that persons presenting a form of photo identification. A section of that ruling gauged that roughly 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin did not possess sufficient identification to vote at the time that the ruling was issued in April 2014, but it did not suggest that all 300,000 had tried and failed to vote at any point: section In light of the fact that a substantial number of the 300,000 plus voters who lack an ID are low income, Act 23's burdens must be assessed with reference to them rather than with reference to a typical middle- or upper-class voter. Although the latter voter may have little trouble obtaining an ID, he or she is not the type of voter who will need to obtain one in order to comply with Act 23. Thus, in the discussion that follows, I identify the burdens associated with obtaining a qualifying photo ID and explain how they will impact low-income voters. Given the obstacles identified above, it is likely that a substantial number of the 300,000 plus voters who lack a qualifying ID will be deterred from voting. Although not every voter will face all of these obstacles, many voters will face some of them, particularly those who are low income. And the evidence at trial showed that even small obstacles will be enough to deter many individuals who lack an ID from voting.  The courts found not that 300,000 people were actively "turned away" as of April 2014, but rather that that number of registered voters possibly faced what the court deemed to be undue burdens obtaining the necessary identification to vote:  There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from voting without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes. On 26 October 2016, the New York Times provided updated information about voter ID laws in Wisconsin. Although some barriers to voting remain, the paper found many of the controversial provisions had been overturned: about It seemed a clear victory for voting rights advocates in July when a federal court invalidated much of Wisconsins restrictive elections law, concluding that it discriminated against minorities by requiring voters to produce photo identification cards that blacks and Latinos too often lack. The remedy was straightforward: Henceforth, the state was to promptly issue a credential valid as a voting ID to any person who applied for one. But this month when Treasure Collins visited one of the Wisconsin motor vehicle offices that issue IDs, she found something entirely different. I brought everything my mom told me I would need: my school ID, a copy of my birth certificate, my Social Security number, said Ms. Collins, 18. But they told me I needed an original copy of my birth certificate. An original copy, all the way from Illinois. While Donald J. Trump repeatedly claims that the election is rigged against him, voting rights groups are increasingly battling something more concrete in this years ferocious wars over access to the ballot box: Despite a string of court victories against restrictive voting laws passed by Republican legislatures, even when voting rights groups win in court, they are at risk of losing on the ground. The 300,000 figure originated with a court's estimate of how many voters were potentially impacted by a voter ID law as it stood in April 2014, but by October 2016, changes had been made to that law. Moreover, even if the 300,000 figure was an accurate estimate of Wisconsin residents who back in 2014 possibly could not vote because they did not have the correct identification, that number was not a head count of residents who actually did (or would have) set out to vote on 8 November 2016 only to be turned away. Berman, Ari.  "The GOPs Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016."
  The Nation.  9 November 2016. Berman, Ari.  "Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo Ids Required to Vote in November."
  The Nation.  29 September 2016. Bialik, Carl.  "Voter Turnout Fell, Especially in States That Clinton Won."
  FiveThirtyEight.  11 November 2016. Wallace, Gregory and Robert Yoon.  "Voter Turnout at 20-Year Low in 2016."
  CNN.  12 November 2016. Wines, Michael.  "After a Fraught Election, Questions Over the Impact of a Balky Voting Process."
  The New York Times.  12 November 2016. Wines, Michael.  "As ID Laws Fall, Voters See New Barriers Rise."
  The New York Times.  25 October 2016. United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin.  "Frank v. Walker."
  29 April 2014. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "2011 Wisconsin Act 23."
  25 May 2011.
I just saw a post on Facebook: THE KOCH BROTHERS BUY NPR "After making large donations to National Public Radio (NPR), the radio network charged with delivering an alternative viewpoint to Americans, NPR has slashed its environmental and climate change coverage. Is anyone surprised?  On 28 November 2014, the Facebook group Vocal Progressives posted the meme displayed above to its page without corroborating information or news links, and alarmed many readers who feared corporate interests had compromised the integrity of National Public Radio (NPR). Referenced in the image are Charles Koch and his brother David, the politically active owners of the corporation Koch Industries. David Koch is a board member of several organizations, among them the political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity (which opposes the imposition of taxes levied to address climate change issues). While David Koch (and to a lesser extent Charles) remains openly engaged on specific political issues, the claim regarding NPR and the Kochs is of dubious origin. In part, it appears to trace back to an article published on 24 October 2014 on Inside Climate News titled "NPR Reduces Its Environment Team to One Reporter": article The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest to cover other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR's science desk."We'll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way," she said. "One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world." Gudenkauf also said she doesn't "feel like [the environment] necessarily requires dedicated reporters" because so many other staffers cover the subject, along with their other beats. The article in question addressed NPR's decision to reduce its allocation of coverage to climate change as a separate beat (in favor of folding that topic into standard news coverage); nowhere in the article were David Koch or Charles Koch mentioned by name, despite the presence of several other articles on the site covering the Koch brothers' interests in the Keystone XL pipeline environmental issue. As such, it's reasonable to assume that had the Koch brothers been germane at all to Inside Climate News's NPR story published in October 2014, the publication would have made that connection at the time. Although Inside Climate News's piece was critical of NPR's decision to combine climate coverage with other news, the move was not framed as one made under any political or funding pressure whatsoever. Three days after the original Inside Climate News article was published, an unrelated article involving the Koch brothers and NPR appeared in a different publication. Titled "Did You Hear the Koch Brothers Just Gave a Million Bucks to NPR to Cover Healthcare?", that piece was deliberately misleading in its frame: It opened by explaining the million dollar Koch donation hadn't happened, but another organization had donated a large sum to NPR. The near-concurrent appearance of the two articles may have loaned credence to the idea that NPR slashed its climate change coverage to appease the Kochs in October of 2014. article Another article, published in May 2013, may have fueled the belief NPR's reduction of dedicated environmental coverage stemmed from Koch donations. The New Yorker ran a piece at the time about PBS affiliate WNET's handling of content involving the Kochs. In that item, WNET's president Neal Shapiro disclosed conversations with David Koch about a 2013 film release: a piece That Friday, Shapiro initially said, he called Koch at his office and told him that the Gibney film "was going to be controversial," noting, "You're going to be a big part of this thing." Shapiro offered to show him the trailer, and added that he hoped to arrange "some sort of on-air roundtable discussion of it, to provide other points of view." It could air immediately after the documentary. (Shapiro told me, "We did this after Ken Burns's film on baseball, too. We like to have a local angle.") Shapiro asked Koch, "Do you want to be involved?" He also offered Koch the opportunity to provide a written response, which the station could air after the show.Shapiro acknowledges that his call to Koch was unusual. Although many prominent New Yorkers are portrayed in "Park Avenue," he said that he "only just called David Koch. He's on our board. He's the biggest main character. No one else, just David Koch. Because he's a trustee. It's a courtesy." Shapiro, who joined WNET six years ago, from NBC News, added, "I can't remember doing anything like this  I can't remember another documentary centered around New York and key people in the city, and such controversial topics." However, that article addressed content pertaining to the Koch brothers' overall influence and was not specific to climate change, and the controversial claims made in the piece concerned PBS, not NPR. Additionally, in NPR's ethics manual, guidelines for the interaction of funding sources and NPR journalists are detailed: ethics manual Our journalism is made possible by a diverse coalition of funding sources, including donations from members of the public, grants from foundations and government agencies, and paid sponsorships and underwriting. While we value all who support our work, those who fund us do so in the knowledge that our journalism serves only the public. We believe our strength as a business is premised solely on high-quality, independent journalism in the public interest. All NPR employees  journalists as well as sponsorship, communications and development staff  are committed first and foremost to that service. At NPR, the journalists  including senior news managers  have full and final authority over all journalistic decisions. We work with all other divisions of the company towards the goal of supporting and protecting our journalism. This means we communicate with our sponsorship and development departments to identify areas where we hope to expand our reporting. It also means we may take part in promotional activities or events such as coordinated fund drives, listener support spots and public radio audience-building initiatives. But we observe a clear boundary line: NPR journalists interact with funders only to further our editorial goals, not to serve the agendas of those who support us. NPR also addressed the specific issue of whether the Kochs were major donors (or donated at all) during controversy over coverage of the People's Climate March in September 2014. At that time NPR confirmed that while critics believed David and Charles Koch were NPR donors, there was no record of the Koch brothers of having made any donation (large or small) to NPR, and the broadcasters clarified their position on climate change and their objectives when covering environmental issues: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/lisbon-portugal-february-17-2014-photo-177163448In a related note, many emailers seemed to think that the brothers David and Charles Koch are donors to NPR. If so, no one at NPR knows about it. The development office did several days of searching and could find no record of their giving. Not that the Kochs couldn't give if they wanted to. The critics might be confusing NPR with WGBH, the public TV and radio station in Boston; David Koch is a long-time supporter and board member there and formerly of other public radio stations like WNET. In its coverage of climate change, NPR long ago crossed the bridge to conclude that, based on the science, climate change is real and we humans are contributing to it. Some of the email writers seem to want NPR to be an advocate on the issue, but beyond drawing attention to it, NPR isn't one and shouldn't be. It reports dissenting views when newsworthy, though in its framing of stories overall and in its emphasis on the facts, I find the coverage avoids the trap of "false equivalence." As of 2018, David Koch's name no longer appears on the WGBH's Board of Trustees' page. However, Koch still supports the PBS science series "NOVA"  which PBS says affects its direction not at all. page still supports Responding to an ad blitz in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged Missouri businesses to move to the booming Lone Star State, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon suggested that taxes are lower in his state and that students fare better. Nixon, a Democrat, also singled out credit worthiness in the radio spotwe noticed onlineAug. 27, 2013. Unlike Texas, Nixon said, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. Three days earlier, heposted a similar claimon a Twitter list of ways he ranks the Show-Me State as #betterthantx. His credit claim snagged our attention. Achart posted onlineby the California state treasurer lists state general-obligation bond ratings by three rating agencies. We noticed that Missouri and Texas both earned the highest, AAA rating from both Fitch Ratings and Moodys Investors Service. But Standard & Poors gave Missouri a  AAA rating and Texas a rating of AA+, which is its rating immediately below AAA. Via emails from spokespersons for each of those rating services, we confirmed those ratings for both states--and we inquired into the differences. By phone, New York-based Moodys spokesman David Jacobson told us that both states have long been stable borrowers, though Missouri has had its Moodys AAA rating longer--since at least 1972, Jacobson said. In contrast, he said, Moodys lowered its rating for Texas general obligation debt from AAA to AA in 1987. That year, Texas faced a recession that drove down state revenues. In 2010, Jacobson said, Moodys recalibrated its methodology for rating state debt; Texas regained a AAA rating. A Standard & Poors spokesman, Olayinka Fadahunsi, emailed us a Nov. 20, 2012, report by the firm stating it had assigned its AA+ rating to general-obligation bonds issued by the Texas Transportation Commission. The report credited the Texas economy with being diverse and strong and likely to continue to generate additional jobs. Also, it said, state government had strong cash-management practices and low overall debt and retirement liabilities. On the other hand, it expressed concern at the states budgetary pressures, which are primarily related to the growing proportion of school revenues Texas is required to fund, as well as insufficient new sources of recurring dedicated tax revenues to support the increased funding. The report also cited increasing spending pressure from public assistance payments, including Medicaid, plus uncertainty about how the Obamacare law might affect the states health-care expenditures. Based on the analytic factors we evaluate for states, on a four-point scale in which '1' is the strongest, we have assigned Texas an overall score of '1.8, the report said. We asked Fadahunsi to discuss the distinction between the firms AA+ and AAA ratings. By email, he said that there is no one precise financial distinction. The firms general debt ratings methodology, as published Jan. 3, 2011, states that it develops a states credit rating by judging conditions across factors including the governments framework; financial management; economy; budgetary performance; and debt/liability profile. We assess each of these factors utilizing various metrics that we score on a scale from 1 (strongest) to 4 (weakest), the methodology states. For each metric there may be several indicators we evaluate to develop the metric score. We score each indicator individually on the same scale and average the indicators' scores to develop the overall score for the metric. We average the metrics for each factor to develop a composite score for each. The scores for the five factors are combined and averaged with equal weighting to arrive at an overall score which is then translated to an indicative credit level. The report says an overall score of 1 to 1.5 is needed to draw the AAA rating. Separately, R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the Texas state comptrollers office, pointed us to a December 2012,reportby the Texas Bond Review Board which includes a chart indicating that as of August 2012, Missouri was among seven states with AAA GO debt ratings from the three major rating services. The other perfects were: Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Finally we asked Robert Coalter, executive director of theTexas Public Finance Authority, which issues bonds for the acquisition or construction of state buildings, to speak to any financial costs to Texas from not having Missouris three AAA ratings. Coalter said by phone that the effect is minimal, adding that any entity that issues bonds--including state agencies--sometimes obtain ratings from only one or two of the rating services. Also, he said, investment firms conduct their own research before committing to bonds. Coalter said the ratings of Texas debt are outstanding. Our debt is considered to be top quality. Put another way, might the Missouri governors statement be real-world meaningless? I do not believe its significant, Coalter replied. He said the claim sounded like comparing one student scoring 100 on a test with another scoring 99. Our ruling Nixon said that unlike Texas, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. Thats correct, though Texas is close; two major services rate the bigger states GO debt AAA, one rates it AA+, which is its next-highest rating. We rate this claim as True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Joe Kyrillos said increased revenues are needed to deal with the national debt, but the path to that goal isnt paved with tax hikes.Rather, Kyrillos said, he wants to lower taxes to stimulate growth.Well, we're going to have to raise revenue and I want to do it through growth. I want to lower tax rates. I want to make sure that America doesn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is what we have now, and lower the rates for everybody, Kyrillos said during a debate tonight with his Democratic rival, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, that aired on NJTV.Are corporations in the United States subject to the highest tax rate in the world?The statutory rate for businesses is the highest among industrialized nations. But for the rate businesses actually pay -- whats called the effective tax rate -- the United States ranks among the highest, but not at the very top, according to studies.We checked a nearly identical claim that Kyrillos made during an Aug. 20 interview on WOR-AM. Then he said, we've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We rated that statement Mostly True.At that time, a spokeswoman for Kyrillos cited the nations top statutory corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent. That rate is a combination of federal, state and local tax rates before any tax breaks are factored in.Japan used to have a higher statutory rate than the United States. But in April, Japan reduced its rate and the U.S. took first place among industrialized nations, according to the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group.So on that point, Kyrillos is right.Since businesses receive a number of tax breaks, the effective tax rate for corporations in the U.S. isnt the worlds highest, but its still up there.More than a dozen of the most recent studies on effective corporate tax rates across the world found businesses in the U.S. paid an effective rate between 23 percent and 34.9 percent, according to a September 2011 report from the Tax Foundation.The effective rate varied between the studies the Tax Foundation looked at because of different methodologies.In those studies, the U.S. never ranked first in the world. But in 10 of the studies, the nations effective corporate tax rate ranked among the top five highest.Its worth noting that an analysis by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that 30 Fortune 500 companies, including General Electric, didnt pay any federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period.As for what is the better measure -- statutory rates or effective rates -- we found mixed views.Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, told PolitiFact New Jersey in August that because statutory rates are fixed they make for better comparisons, whereas effective rates are unpredictable and vary across different industries.But Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said effective tax rates provide the best measure of comparison for overall tax burdens.Then Aparna Mathur, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in an e-mail that both are equally valid measures of looking at the burden of the corporate income tax.Our rulingKyrillos repeated a claim he made before that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.Thats true for the nations statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. When Japan lowered its statutory rate, the United States moved into first place.Even when accounting for various tax breaks, the effective rate is still among the highest.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate this statement Mostly True.To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. In July 2020, a message supposedly written by radio host and financial advisor Dave Ramsey about the dangers of a cashless society went viral on social media. This piece of text typically started with the title "Here's What No Cash Actually Means" and a line attributing the message to Ramsey:   A common tactic of purveyors of misinformation is to attach a well-known or well-liked person to an opinion piece in an attempt to give those opinions credence. In this case, Ramsey was attached to this warning about a cashless society in order to lend some authority to this diatribe. Ramsey, however, did not write the above-displayed text. On July 10, 2020, Ramsey took to Twitter to clarify that he had nothing to do with this message. Ramsey exclaimed "NOT me" before adding a common and obviously fictitious quote from late U.S. President Abraham Lincoln about believing everything you read on the internet: Twitter    It should also be noted that many of the activities mentioned in this post wouldn't actually be precluded in a cashless society. One could still, for instance, do odd jobs, send money for birthdays, or sell used items for extra money. The nature of these transactions might change (one would have to find a digital solution, such as a pre-paid debit cards or a mobile payment service), but it wouldn't cause these acts to disappear entirely.  Although Ramsey did not write this warning, the financial guru has opined on the idea of a cashless society. When asked about his thoughts on businesses doing away with cash transactions, Ramsey said that it wasn't a topic that caused him much worry: said I really dont spend a lot of time thinking or worrying about the situation. When it comes right down to it, most businesses are doing that for one or two reasons. Some of them just think cash is old school, and they want to give the impression theyre cutting edge and into technology. Others do it, depending upon the space theyre in, because their sales using plastic are higher than with cash. Honestly, I think the whole scenario is kind of silly. Businesses that are suddenly into the no cash thing lose out on a lot of transactions. There are still many people out there who only make purchases with cash. So, from a business owners perspective this philosophy can cut into your market share. Im a cash guy. There are some situations where I might walk away if someone wouldnt accept cash. But in most cases I dont think anything about it. Ill just use my debit card, and buy what I need. It's still unclear who authored this post about a cashless society, but it was not Ramsey.    Daveramsey.com.  "No Cash Businesses?"
  Retrieved 14 July 2020. President Trump was widely criticized over Veterans Day weekend in November 2018 after he skipped an event at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of World War 1 due to inclement weather.  criticized   Social media users chided Trump for bowing out of the scheduled event, which was attended by other world leaders such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French President Emmanuel Macron, sharing photographs of "real presidents" who had previously honored veterans while standing in the rain. chided real presidents President Trump took issue with this coverage, however, and on 13 November 2018 he took to Twitter to explain his absence (asserting that his helicopter couldn't fly because of the rain) and proclaim that he had delivered a speech in the "pouring rain" the following day but that the event was "little reported" by the "fake news": Twitter   President Trump's explanation for missing the memorial at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery might have been regarded as questionable, but President Trump truly did deliver a speech in the rain (although we'd quibble with the assertion that it was "pouring") at the American Cemetery of Suresnes, as NBC News reported: questionable reported President Donald Trump paid tribute on Sunday to Americans who fought in the two world wars, saying the nation is forever in their debt during a visit to a cemetery in France where more than 1,500 of them are buried. Its been a wonderful two days we spent in France, and this has certainly been the highlight of the trip," Trump said in remarks that capped a weekend in Paris where he and more than 80 other world leaders marked the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I ... Standing at the presidential podium under a steady rain without an umbrella, Trump joked to six World War II veterans about their enviable position keeping them dry. You look so comfortable up there under shelter as we're getting drenched, Trump said, drawing laughter from the crowd. Very smart people. You look like youre in very good shape, all of you, he added. I hope I look like that some day. America is forever in your debt.  The ceremony in Suresnes certainly drew less attention on social media than Trump's absence at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery the previous day did, but it isn't accurate to say that his visit to the Suresnes Cemetery was "little reported." In addition to the aforementioned NBC News report, Trump's speech was also covered by outlets such as CNN, USA Today, CBS News and Time magazine. CNN USA Today CBS News Time Despite this coverage, a number of social media users seemed surprised when they came across a photograph posted to Facebook by Dan Scavino, the White House Director of Social Media, which showed President Trump standing solemnly in the rain at a cemetery: Facebook   Social media users took to the comments section to claim that this image was fake and that Trump had been digitally inserted into the picture. While it's possible that Scavino applied some sort of filter to this photograph (Trump's outline is surprisingly crisp), a number of similar pictures can be found via news outlets such as NBC News and photography agencies such as Getty Images: NBC News Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Jackson, David.  "President Trump Blames Secret Service for Canceling Cemetery Trip in France."
  USA Today.  13 November 2018. Lee, Carol.  "Trump Pays Tribute to the Veterans and Alliances of Two World Wars."
  NBC News.  11 November 2018. Brinlee, Morgan.  "Trump Canceled a U.S. Military Cemetery Visit Due to Rain, and Twitter Was Not Impressed."
  Bustle.  11 November 2018. Belam, Martin.  "French Army Trolls Trump with Picture of Them Training in Rain."
  Guardian.  12 November 2018. Horton, Alex.  "Trump Skipped a U.S. Cemetery Visit Abroad. The French Army Trolled Him for Avoiding the Rain.
  The Washington Post.  12 November 2018. In September 2018, a photograph went viral on social media along with a caption which claimed it showed a woman named "Brittany L." holding a leopard she had just killed during a hunting expedition. On 10 September, the wildlife artist Sue Dickinson posted the photograph to her Facebook page along with a message which read as follows: posted This is Brittany L. She just killed this male leopard in his prime. According to SCI (Safari Club International) this leopard ranks as potentially the 9th largest leopard ever hunted. She's a cretin. Please share if you agree. Let's name and shame her.   Dickinson's post was shared hundreds of thousands of times within a week and was re-published through multiple accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, including the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Naomi Campbell The image is authentic and captures a woman posing with a real leopard that she herself killed. The photograph was first posted on 7 September 2018 to the web site of Safari Club International, a hunting organization based in Tucson, Arizona, as part of a group of new entries into the organization's online record book: posted SCI members share their hunter pride SCI Members hunt all over the globe, and are proud to share their successes. By entering their successful hunts in the SCI Record Book, they are not only documenting their hunting legacy for future generations, they are also adding to one of the largest and most comprehensive wildlife databases in the world. The URL of the controversial photograph contains the words "Brittany L" and "leopard," so it was reasonable for internet users to deduce that the woman shown with the leopard had the first name Brittany and a surname beginning with the letter "L." Indeed, we can confirm that Brittany L. is the woman shown in the photograph (rather than the name of the person who submitted it to SCI's record book). On 7 September, SCI posted more details about "Brittany L.'s" leopard photograph on HuntForever.org, a website affiliated with the organization. That blog post has since been removed, but we obtained an SCI newsletter email dated 7 September with content identical to the blog post's embedded in it (despite the post's having been removed from HuntForever.org itself). affiliated That blog post described the contentious photograph as follows: "Brittany L. is featured here with her African leopard that potentially ranks number 9 overall and scores 18 4/16." described Safari Club International.  "SCI Members Share Their Hunter Pride."
  7 September 2018. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. Claim:  Jesse Shedd is wanted by the police for beating an autistic woman named Ashley Hamilton.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, April 2013] WANTED BY THE LAW - TABITHA ADKINS AND JESSE SHEDD If you know the whereabouts of these criminals, please report this to your local police immediately, or post a comment on this blog or on Facebook. I see too many posts on Facebook about monsters who abuse and kill the innocent. We must not be silent. Silence implies consent. If you can stop a monster, you have to do your part - or you become an "accomplice after the fact" and share the guilt for the crime.  We need everyone help to find these two there names are Tabitha Adkins and Jesse Shedd. They brutally beat this sweet little girl, Ashley who is autistic and handicapped and uses a wheelchair. Please everyone report this so they can be brought to justice. Origins:  According to information posted on the Facebook site Justice for Ashley Hamilton, an autistic young woman by that name was "severely beaten by her caregivers" on 3 April 2013 (just three days before her 22nd birthday).  Atlanta television station WIXI reported on the case, noting that: Justice for Ashley Hamilton  The Rabun County Sheriff's Office is investigating the possibility that a wheelchair-bound woman was assaulted. The victim, 21-year-old Ashley Hamilton, suffered extensive injuries to her head and face. Police found her at Raco's Sports Bar in Clayton on Apr. 3. Rabun County Sheriff Frank Andrews said investigators think Hamilton was left in the care of family friends while her mother was out of town. The victim suffers from disabilities and must use a wheelchair. Andrews said Hamilton may have sustained her injuries on Apr. 2. A home health professional said she told the victim's mother, Kelly Hamilton, to take the young woman to the hospital, but Ashley Hamilton did not receive medical attention until police and EMS found her at the sports bar. No arrests have been made, but Andrews said the sheriff's office has several persons of interest. They are trying to determine when and how Hamilton was injured. "We must be diligent in our efforts to find as much tangible evidence as possible since our victim is not in a position to tell us what happened to her," Andrews said in a statement. "It is in the interest of justice to see that no stone is left unturned." Atlanta television station WAGA has also reported that police were  investigating the case: Authorities are investigating after a 22-year-old autistic woman was brutally attacked in Rabun County. Kelly Hamilton says she was out of town when she learned about injuries to her daughter Ashley's feet and face.   "Her mouth was busted and her tooth was knocked out," Hamilton said. Family members say the autistic woman is developmentally on par with a 2-year-old child. They don't know who is responsible and say they remain stunned anyone could or would harm the helpless woman.  "The night I got home, there was no swelling or any bruising on her eye that had shown up. The doctors said that it would take 24 hours for  bruising to develop," Kelly Hamilton said.  After family members reported the attack, doctors treated Ashley Hamilton for those bruises. She spent a birthday in the hospital. Authorities are investigating the beating. Authorities say while Kelly Hamilton was out of town, Ashley stayed with family friends.  Family members say they hope that investigation leads to an arrest for an attack on a woman who can't fight back.  "She's a beautiful little girl who can't defend herself and she's brutally beaten up here and I just want justice for her," said Kelly Hamilton.  Rabun County authorities say that they are gathering details in the case. The Clayton Tribune posted on their Facebook page on 5 April 2013 that: Facebook page In regard to the widely circulated photo on our Facebook page and beyond of an alleged beaten girl, we confirmed [yesterday] with the Rabun County Sheriffs Department that there is an open investigation. There are currently no other official updates, but we will provide news updates as we have them.   On 17 April 2013, WAGA reported that seven people, including Ashley's mother and Jesse Shedd, were facing charges in connection with the case: Jesse Shedd Seven people are facing charges in connection to the alleged beating of an autistic woman.  Now, the victim's mother and other family members responsible for her care have been arrested.   Kelly Hamilton says the charges of disabled person abuse against her are unfounded.  Hamilton says she was out of town when a family friend severely beat her 22-year-old daughter, Ashley.  Authorities also charged Richard Foss, Hamilton's fianc, with reckless conduct.   "They're saying the reason for the charges are because we didn't immediately call the night we got home to see her in that condition, but that condition wasn't visible until the next day," said Hamilton.  "They said 24 hours later the bruises would show after a beating to her head."  "Besides the cut on her lip and a broken tooth, those were the only visible signs the night we arrived," Foss said. Authorities have also charged five other people in the case.  Deputies say one family friend who cared for Ashley, 28-year-old Jesse Terrell Shedd, faces charges of battery and disabled person abuse for actually hitting the severely autistic woman.   "During that two hour timeframe, we don't know to what extent the abuse occurred, but the facts and circumstances led us to believe he did inflict substantial visible bodily injury on Ashley Hamilton," said Rabun County Sheriff's Office chief investigator Gerald Johnson.   Last updated:  17 April 2013    Carver, Darryl.  "Mom, Six Others Charged in Attack on Autistic Woman."   WAGA-TV [Atlanta].  17 April 2013.    Sawicki, Beth.  "Disabled Woman in Wheelchair Possibly Assaulted."   WIXI-TV [Atlanta].  8 April 2013. The introduction of new EMV (Europay, MasterCard, and Visa) technology has enhanced the security of debit and credit card transactions by replacing standard cards with ones embedded with small computer chips  thats extremely hard to counterfeit.  The addition of the chips makes the cards much harder to counterfeit and provides for additional authentication and security during point-of-sale transactions. The manner in which EMV cards are physically handled during a sales transaction is somewhat different than with older cards, however.  Rather than being swiped through a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, EMV cards are inserted (or "dipped") into the terminal and left in place for the entire transaction so that the reader and card can talk back and forth. EMV cards can be either swiped or dipped (since not all merchants are yet set up with EMV-compliant card readers), and that duality has led to some confusion among consumers about whether liability for fraudulent transactions shifts depending upon how an EMV card is processed.  Specifically, some consumers have heard rumors that swiping an EMV card rather than dipping it leaves them (rather than the merchant or card issuer) liable for any ensuing fraudulent use of the card. The issue of fraud liability has evolved with the introduction of EMV cards, but that liability has not been passed back onto cardholders.  According to CreditCards.com, that evolution solely concerns determining whether the merchant or the card issuer is the party bears liability for fraud in any given case  cardholders themselves remain protected from liability, regardless of whether their EMV cards are swiped or dipped: CreditCards.com Cardholders may be adjusting to "dipping" their chip cards instead of swiping them, but they won't have to adjust to fraud liability changes. If an authorized transaction occurs against a consumer's credit account, they will continue to be reimbursed by their card issuer for the charges per the major networks' (Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover) zero-liability policies. If the issuer finds that the fraud occurred at a non-EMV compliant merchant, it can request a refund for the chargeback transaction, but the consumer is not involved. Consumers will not be responsible for fraud charges that result from a merchant not being prepared to properly accept EMV cards or because their card issuer has not yet sent them a chip-embedded card. What the new rules govern is whether merchants or card issuers (i.e., banks and credit unions) are liable in cases of credit card fraud, with responsibility now falling upon whichever party was least EMV-compliant: Today, if an in-store transaction is conducted using a counterfeit, stolen or otherwise compromised card, consumer losses from that transaction fall back on the payment processor or issuing bank, depending on the card's terms and conditions. Following an Oct. 1, 2015 deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud shifted to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction. Consider the example of a financial institution that issues a chip card used at a merchant that has not changed its system to accept chip technology. This allows a counterfeit card to be successfully used. "The cost of the fraud will fall back on the merchant," [chip card service company president Martin] Ferenczi says. The change is intended to help bring the entire payment industry on board with EMV by encouraging compliance to avoid liability costs. A separate article on that web site illustrated the liability shifts with a chart: illustrated  Many consumers have noticed that although some merchants have seemingly upgraded to EMV-compliant POS terminals, the card slots on those terminals are puzzlingly non-operational (and thus require that customers swipe their chipped cards).  As the New York Times noted  in March 2016, that situation is the result of merchants' having to wait for certification of their terminals: noted  Avi Kaner, a co-owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain in New York, has spent about $700,000 to update the payment terminals at his stores. Trouble is, he cannot turn them on. The new terminals can accept credit and debit cards with embedded digital chips, a security feature intended to reduce the number of fraudulent purchases. But before the payment systems can work, they must be certified, a process that Mr. Kaner and many retailers around the country are waiting to happen. In the case of Morton Williams, the holdup has lasted several months. The cost of waiting, retailers say, is piling up. Until recently, banks covered much of the cost of fraudulent purchases. Since Oct. 1, though, merchants that cannot accept chip cards have had to shoulder the cost of fraud, and banks have not been shy about passing along the bill. For years, retailers have argued that the technology, commonly referred to as E.M.V., which stands for Europay, MasterCard and Visa, the technologys early advocates, mainly protected banks. Mr. Peterson estimated that only 40 to 50 percent of retailers are capable of accepting chip cards. Kaner told the newspaper he believed consumers were taking advantage of the interim period to file suspicious chargebacks due to the shift in liability: Mr. Kaner worries that some customers may be using the Oct. 1 liability shift to get out of paying for legitimate purchases. The number of chargebacks, he said, has risen sharply. It started out as a trickle, and now its turning into a flood, he said. In the first couple months, it might have been a few hundred dollars a month. Now, its thousands a month. Terry Crowley, CEO of processor TranSend, told KrebsonSecurity that consumer dishonesty was a larger issue than consumer liability during the transition period: told Crowley predicts that plenty of smaller merchants could soon get hit with a wave of chargebacks from unscrupulous people abusing the liability shift at merchants that still dont offer the chip dip. Theres an invisible hand at work that is about to kick everyone in the pants and accelerate U.S. dipping into EMV slots, Crowley said. If you use a chip card at a point of sale that says swipe   and you later say that wasnt me  theres very little a merchant can do to dispute that charge. Its going to happen because what people arent thinking about is the friendly fraud. When people are made aware that if I swipe and I have a chip card, that lunch can be free if Im a bad consumer. It's possible cardholders have confused information intended for merchants as being directed at them.Processor Square published a short instructional guide for the EMV card liability shift that might have caused such confusion among consumers who didn't realize the pronoun "you" referred to merchants and not cardholders: instructional guide  But, in short, consumers don't have to adjust to fraud liability changes with EMV cards.  That's an issue for merchants and card issuers to sort out between them. Abrams, Rachel.  "Chip-Card Payment System Delays Frustrate Retailers."
  The New York Times.  22 March 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "7 Merchant Tips to Understanding EMV Fraud Liability Shift."
  CreditCards.com.  21 June 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "8 FAQs About EMV Credit Cards."
  CreditCards.com.  17 June 2016. KrebsonSecurity.  "The Great EMV Fake-Out: No Chip for You!"
  16 February 2016. A federal judgeissueda temporary restraining order to block the online publication of blueprints outlining how to create untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed firearms. The blueprints were originally scheduled for an Aug. 1 release after a government settlement ended five years of litigation. But word of the release prompted panic as legislators and officials scrambled to block the action. Before the federal judges ruling, at least 21 attorneys general filed suit to stop the blueprints from going live. As conversation heated up, President Donald Trump weighed in onTwitter. I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public, he said. Already spoke to NRA, doesnt seem to make much sense! I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesnt seem to make much sense! Politicians and pundits jumped at the presidents words as proof that he was unfamiliar with a decision from his own administration. Trump: My own administrations latest decision doesnt seem to make much sense! said a July 31headlinefrom Addicting Info, a liberal website. This story was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnershipwith Facebook.) Trumps last-minute statement gave us pause, too, so we decided to look at the settlement. Was the Trump administration  or Trump  actually behind it? The White House did not respond to a request for comment (though Trump's press secretary said later that he did not get a chance to weigh in). So we searched elsewhere for our answer. On May 5, 2013, Defense Distributeduploadedblueprints online that could be used to make a working 3D-printed gun called The Liberator, as well as a 53-secondvideoof founder Cody Wilson firing one. Wilson soon received aletterfrom the Obama administrations State Department demanding that he remove the files from the internet. The letter said the technical data amounted to an illegal gun export in violation of theArms Export Control ActandInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations, because it could be accessed in countries where the United States does not sell weapons. The State Department instructed Wilson to take down the files until he applied for specific approval of the guns multiple components. By that point, the blueprints had already been downloaded 100,000 times. In response, Wilson filed alawsuitagainst the State Department with the help of Second Amendment Foundation, a guns-rights organization, in which he sought a preliminary injunction to allow continued publication of the gun files online. Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, the government stuck by its assertion that the technical data constituted an illegal gun export. Wilson countered that the governments intervention violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Ultimately, district and appeals courts both rejected Wilsons injunction request. But as the case turned to the First Amendment claim, the government made an unexpected settlement offer. With thesettlement, reached in June and announced July 10, the government waived the relevant export restrictions and allowed Wilson to post the blueprints online as early as Aug. 1. Specifically, the State Departmentannouncedthat it was in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States to temporarily modify theU.S. Munitions Listto exclude the technical data for the 3-D-printed guns. Defense-related items on the munitions list face tight restrictions, because they offer a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States. The U.S. Commerce Department manages a separate export list with fewer restrictions. It is not clear what role Trump or the White House played in the settlement decision, though White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanderssaid during an Aug. 1 press briefing that the Department of Justice instructed the State Department to settle without White House approval. The State Department has said that its role in this issue relates solely to regulation of exports of certain types of firearms and any related technical data. But the move to shift the 3D-printed guns technical data outside of the State Departments purview was not without precedent. The governments decision came amid a longstanding but relatively behind-the-scenes administrative project  started under the Obama administration and known as export control reform  to restructure the regulations governing exports of weapons and technologies. Just as the litigation against Wilson can be traced back to the Obama years, so, too, can the export control changes that may have opened the door for the State Departments settlement. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administrationlaunchedan overhaul of export control in order to refine regulations for items that were subject to both the State Departments International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations. The goal of the reform was to streamline export controls by transferring commercially available items  such as consumer guns  off the USML and onto the less restrictive Commerce Control List. The State Department began reviewing the munitions list, sifting through each category and removing items that were not considered military-sensitive. By 2016, it had finished reviewing all but threecategories: firearms, ammunition and artillery. However, reform of those final categories stalled before it could become policy. Aproposed rulewould have handed jurisdiction of commercial firearms export controls to the Commerce Department in 2012, but it was delayed following the Sandy Hook school shooting. That proposed rule did notregainmomentum until 2018, under Trump. On May 24, the Departments ofStateandCommercesimultaneously publishedproposalsin the Federal Register to amend the final three categories of the munitions list. The proposed revisions would keep military-grade weapons under State Department jurisdiction and place commercially available firearms under the purview or the Commerce Department. According to theNew York Times, these proposals strongly resemble the Obama administrations 2012 version. CNNreportedthat the government is currently reviewing them. This may explain the State Departments sudden decision to settle its case with Wilson. By recommending that commercial firearm exports move under Commerce Department oversight, the May 24 proposals would likely free Wilsons blueprints from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations that previously restricted them. My guess is that it was somehow wrapped up in the movement of items from the (U.S. Munitions List) to the (Commerce Control List), said Rachel Stohl, managing director at the Stimson Center and an expert in the international arms trade. If you deregulate the weapons themselves, it would follow that the technical specs could be deregulated as well. Stohl added that the settlement was unexpected and the State and Commerce Departments have been less than forthcoming on these details. For his part, Wilson has agreed to refrain from posting his blueprints for at least another month while the multi-state lawsuit travels through the courts. A headline suggested that the government settlement that would have made 3D-printable guns available for download was actually a Trump administration decision, and that Trump said that didn't make much sense. We could not independently determine the extent of Trumps involvement, although Sanders said the president was not afforded the opportunity to approve of the settlement decision. But the State Department under Trump did initiate the settlement after previously taking steps to clear a path for it. However, the Obama administrations export control reform made those steps possible, and it is not far-fetched to consider the Trump administrations move a continuation of that initiative. We rate this statement Mostly True.