Was a GoFundMe Page Established for Brett Kavanaugh?
The fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hung in the balance in early October 2018 as the Senate Judiciary Committee awaited the results of an FBI investigation into allegations that he had committed a sexual assault some 30 years before -- allegations that Kavanaugh angrily denied in his Senate testimony. The Senate was already sharply divided along party lines on the urgency of pushing ahead with the confirmation, with Democrats demanding a full and unimpeded investigation into the charges and Republicans accusing the Democrats resorting to delaying tactics and attempting to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Public opinion was divided as well, with 45 percent of Americans saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser (Professor Christine Blasey Ford) and 33 percent saying they believed Kavanaugh in an opinion poll taken four days after their testimonies. poll This clash of opinions played out on social media as uncivil debates raged in which each faction claimed the moral high ground and accused the other of lies and hypocrisy. A meme shared on 1 October took aim at Kavanaugh by calling out a GoFundMe account supposedly established in his and his family's name:   The implication, of course, is that as a presumably wealthy and privileged member of the Washington elite, Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need a fundraising account. Other social media users made the same point: Yes, a gofundme page has raised over $100,000 for poor Brett Kavanaugh. Thats right, some people think he needs money even though he has a job, government body guards, and will either soon be a Supreme Court justice, or he will get a six figures book deal. pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco  Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) September 29, 2018 September 29, 2018  Why are people giving money to SUPER WEALTHY #Kavanaugh & #DrChristineBlaseyFord ??? Both are RICH, should be GIVING MONEY, NOT GETTING!!! RT @thehill: GoFundMe campaign for Kavanaugh raises over $500,000 https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 #Kavanaugh #DrChristineBlaseyFord @thehill https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0  Trixy Wh (@trixywh) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018  Whether or not it addressed an actual financial need on his part (press reports suggest that Kavanaugh, though by no means poor, is less well off as several current members of the Supreme Court), a number of Kavanaugh supporters did launch GoFundMe accounts in his name in late September and early October. The most successful of these had raised more than $600,000 by 5 October. It was opened by John Hawkins of North Carolina, who runs a partisan news and opinion website called Right Wing News. reports successful John Hawkins Right Wing News In an introductory note on the GoFundMe page, Hawkins explained the thinking behind it as follows: Like many decent people from both parties, I have been disgusted by the unsubstantiated 36 year old smears aimed at Brett Kavanaugh. We live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean something; yet Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is being dragged through the mud while his family is facing non-stop death threats. This is a horrible way to treat a good man who has dedicated his life to public service. So many unethical people are giving unprovable 36 year old accusations the same weight as 6 FBI background checks, hundreds of hours of hearings and testimony under oath. It is disgraceful. What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit. All of the money collected will go to Brett Kavanaugh's family or alternately, if they refuse to accept it, to a charity of their choice. I have already reached out to a contact who should be able to put me in touch with Brett Kavanaugh's family. If he can't do it, I have plenty of other contacts who should be able to make it happen. I will update this page after I have talked with his family. I hope you will show your support for a good man who has been treated very, very badly. Hawkins posted updates chronicling his efforts to get in touch with the Kavanaugh family to discuss disbursing the funds. After many unsuccessful attempts he finally spoke to one of the judge's staffers, who told him that although the family is aware of the GoFundMe account and "extremely appreciative" of the donations, it would be a while before they could address the question of whether or not Kavanaugh, as a political appointee, can accept the money. On 30 October, Hawkins posted an update which included an "official statement" from Kavanaugh's representatives saying he would not accept the funds: "Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose." GoFundMe accounts were also started for Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The most successful of those had accumulated more than $540,000 in donations as of 5 October. A note from Ford posted on the GoFundMe page expressed her appreciation to all those contributing: accumulated I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school. On 21 November, Ford announced the closure of the GoFundMe account, pledging to donate any unused funds to trauma survivors: The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us. With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete. Adams, Becket.  "Kavanaugh Declines $600,000 Raised in His Defense."
 Washington Examiner.  31 October 2018. Albrecht, Leslie.  "Brett Kavanaugh's GoFundMe Page Raises $603,770, Surpassing $540,000 Raised for Christine Blasey Ford."
  Market Watch.  5 October 2018. Bekiempis, Victoria.  "Christine Blasey Ford to Give Donations to Charity for Trauma Survivors."
 The Guardian.  27 November 2018. Goldstein, Steve.  "Brett Kavanaugh May Become the 'Poorest' Supreme Court Justice."
  Market Watch.  14 July 2018. [29 November 2018]: Added information about the closure and disposition of the largest GoFundMe accounts in Kavanaugh and Ford's names.
In a video and an infographic, the Republican National Committee amplified a charge first raised by Mitt Romney on the stump the day before -- that President Barack Obama has held more than 100 fundraisers in the past six months, yet his jobs council didnt meet once.In the last six months, he has held 100 fundraisers, and guess how many meetings he has had with his jobs council? Romneysaid in a July 18, 2012, campaign event in Bowling Green, Ohio. None. Zero. Zero in the last six months. So it makes it very clear where his priorities are.The following day, the RNC released agraphicthat provided some additional specifics. Over the last six months, the graphic said, Obama has golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers, but his jobs council has never met. The RNC supplemented this with avideothat added a goofy soundtrack as well as audio and video of an exchange on this topic between reporters and White House press secretary Jay Carney.Several readers asked us to check this statistic. We wont pass judgment on how Obama should spend his time, but we will check the accuracy of the numbers.The jobs councilLets start by explaining what the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness actually is. Itswebsite explainsthat the panel was established to provide nonpartisan advice to the President on strengthening the economy and creating jobs.The council ischairedby the chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, and is populated by a variety of other business figures, such as former AOL chairman Steve Case, venture capitalist John Doerr, former Citigroup and Time Warner chairman Richard D. Parsons, as well as economist Laura DAndrea Tyson and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.Checking the lack of recent meetings was straightforward. The councils ownweb pagecites four meetings of the council so far -- Feb. 24, 2011, at the White House, June 13, 2011, in Durham, N.C., October 11, 2011, in Pittsburgh, and Jan. 17, 2012, at the White House.The Web page does add that the council has also conducted 18 listening and action sessions in communities around the country with businesses and local leaders and that it plans to hold more in the coming months. However, the Web page doesnt appear to consider these to be meetings, and since the most recent was just slightly over six months ago, the RNCs claim is correct.Asked about thelack of meetingsin a July 18, 2012, press briefing, Carney said the president solicits and receives input and advice from members of his jobs council and others about economic initiatives all the time. Theres no specific reason (why they havent met) except the president has obviously got a lot on his plate.Golf and fundraisingFor statistics on Obamas golf and fundraising activities, we turned to the RNC, which provided us with an Excel spreadsheet they had compiled internally. We then double-checked the RNCs work.There is no official tally of the presidents daily activities. There is one tally thats unofficial but widely respected -- one compiled by longtime CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller.Knollertweetedon June 12, 2012, that today's six events will bring to 160 the number of fundraisers Pres Obama has done since filing for re-election with the FEC last year. He also wrote in astoryon June 17, 2012, that Obama had just played his 100th round of golf since taking office.However, because Knoller did not return an inquiry for this story, we could not match these numbers to the RNCs claim.The RNC offered links to news accounts to back up Obamas 10 golf outings in the past six months, and they confirmed golf outings on the dates cited by the RNC count.As for fundraising events, the RNC only provided dates and locations. However, we were able to check this list using two sources.The White Housesarchiveof presidential speeches and remarks offers chronological links to transcripts of the presidents comments at every public appearance he makes. Many, though not all, fundraising events are included in this archive.Meanwhile, to track events that were closed to the press -- and thus wouldnt be included in the archive of speeches and remarks -- we relied on our personal archive of White House pool reports, which are the dispatches written by journalists covering the White House several times a day and distributed to all members of the White House press corps. These pool reports will typically mention that the president is attending a fundraiser even if the event is closed to the press.Using these two sources, we were able to confirm virtually all of the fundraisers cited by the RNC. In only three cases were we unable to verify fundraisers cited by the RNC using these sources. This doesnt mean that these three events didnt happen; we just couldnt find pool reports that specifically backed them up. However, even if the actual number of fundraisers in the last six months turned out to be 103 rather than 106, we wont quibble -- the number would be close enough for us to consider it accurate.Our rulingThe RNC said that over the last six months, Obama has golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers even as his jobs council didnt meet once. The RNCs tally is on target. We rate the statement True. Breathless e-mailed warnings about the (usually false) latest ways in which thieves are purported to be getting motorists to pull over so they can be preyed upon are nothing new: a few we've previously documented include claims that gangs of robbers were placing tire-puncturing spikes in shopping mall parking lots, or affixing plastic baskets to the undersides of targeted vehicles (thereby prompting drivers to stop to investigate the noise), pouring sugar into gas tanks, festooning cars' windshields with flyers, and even acting drunk or as if they'd been struck by other cars.  spikes baskets sugar flyers drunk Our first sightings of a warning about eggs being thrown at windshields came in October 2009: Please take this seriously! If you are driving at night and are attacked with eggs, do not operate the wiper and  spray and water. Because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% Then you are forced to stop at the road side and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers in Johor Bahru. Please inform your friends and relatives!!  If you are driving at night and eggs are thrown at your windshield. Do not operate the wiper and spray any water because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% so you are forced to stop at the roadside and become a victim of robbers.  This is a new technique used by robbers.  Please inform your friends and relatives. This also happens on interstates near exits. That earlier version, while it also asserted the claim of water mixed with raw egg's obscuring a windshield and bruited the (absurdly precise) 92.5% figure, differed from what has become the canonical form of the warning in that it stated motorists so attacked would become prey to "robbers/carnappers" and recommended those so assaulted instead drive to "a well lit place w/ many people or nearest police station" rather than stop. Later forms of the e-mail added further flourishes, such as "used by robbers" morphing into "used by robbers in Johor Bahru" (the capital city of Johor in southern Malaysia), the addition of the claim that these attacks "happens on interstates near exits," and most commonly the inclusion of a new paragraph that blamed matters on a flagging economy: "Folks are becoming more and more cruel daily. But this is just the beginning of pangs of distress. With the decline in economy and job losses, we can expect anything. Just can't be too careful these days." Though we've queried our police contacts and scoured news reports looking for accounts of robberies and carjackings effected by disabling target  vehicles by pelting them with raw eggs, we haven't been able to document any such occurrences in the U.S.  (In all the years we've been tracking this legend, the most we've turned up is a single unverified account.)Rather, we did locate news stories about police cars so pelted, with the officers retaliating by giving chase to the miscreants who'd thrown eggs at them. In various news accounts we found, officers not only were able to see well enough through their poultrified windows to go after the bad guys, they also succeeded in running them to ground and bringing them to justice. Most tellingly, such accounts made no mention of the officers' experiencing difficulty in seeing well enough through their egged windshields to give chase. unverified While a mixture of raw egg and water vigorously stirred together in a glass will produce a somewhat milky-looking liquid (which might be the source of this tale), there's nothing about the interaction of egg and water that renders the resulting combination into a substance guaranteed to completely block a driver's vision. Egg alone or egg-and-water solutions are thin liquids and so are relatively easy to see through, with the vehicle's wipers generally sweeping away the worst of the mess fairly easily, as demonstrated in the following video: It would take a number of extremely well-placed eggs (a hen's typical offerings aren't that big) to splat a windshield so thoroughly as to completely impair the driver's view and force him to stop immediately. Unless the visibility conditions were already poor, a motorist with a splattered windshield would generally still be able to see well enough to continue driving out of range of the egg-throwing hooligans to a safe stopping place. Certainly miscreants have long engaged in the practice of launching objects (rocks, eggs, firecrackers, paintballs) at moving cars in order to startle motorists into stopping and getting out of their automobiles (typically as a prank, but sometimes as a means of setting up the theft of a vehicle and/or the driver's possessions), but that information is neither new nor shocking. <!--<FONT COLOR=>Variations:  A March 2010 version combined the "eggs baby  A November 2012 version included a photograph of a car's windshield that had some sort of white spatter upon it that looked to us to be white paint: Fernandez, Lisa.  "Off-Duty San Jose Cop Stops Three Men for Vandalizing His Car in Fremont."
  San Jose Mercury News.  1 November 2007.
 Hoober, John.  "Egg Tossed at Cruiser Leads to Chase, Crash."
  Lancaster New Era.  3 December 2008  (p. A1). FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 The one thing an already gaffe-prone politician running for high office most wants to avoid is saying something impolitic about race. But that's exactly what happened to former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on the presidential campaign trail, according to one quote meme: gaffe-prone  In this case the meme is accurate. While speaking at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa, hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition on Aug. 8, 2019, Biden let slip with a statement that poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, thereby implying that economically disadvantaged persons are all non-white. The unfortunate remark by Biden was reported on by The New York Times and captured on video: reported Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised eyebrows during a speech in Iowa when he said that poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, an apparent gaffe for a Democratic presidential candidate whose record on race has come under intense scrutiny during the primary. Mr. Biden was speaking on education and the need to challenge students at a town hall hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition in Des Moines when he made the remark, and then quickly sought to recover from it. We should challenge students in these schools, Mr. Biden said. We have this notion that somehow if youre poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. He paused, then added: Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids  no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.  Kate Bedingfield, Bidens deputy campaign manager, later issued a statement asserting that the candidate "misspoke": Vice President Biden misspoke and immediately corrected himself during a refrain he often uses to make the point that all children deserve a fair shot, and children born into lower-income circumstances are just as smart as those born to wealthy parents, Ms. Bedingfield said. Joe Biden has spent his life fighting for civil rights and the dignity of all people. Stevens, Matt.  "Joe Biden Says Poor Kids Are Just as Bright as White Kids."
  The New York Times.  9 August 2019. Marc Katz, the Austin deli owner running for lieutenant governor, lists health care as his No. 1 campaign issue on his Web site. So it's no surprise that he took a shot at highlighting Texas' struggling mental health system on Twitter.Texas is LAST (50th) in spending for mental health care, he saidin a message on Twitteron Dec. 8.We wanted to know the source for Katz's claim, but he didn't respond to our phone calls or email. We assume Katz was referring to data published by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for fiscal 2006, which tallied mental health care spending for the District of Columbia and the 50 states. Texas was indeed ranked 50th for spending  per capita  though that was second to last.Spending $34.57 per Texan, the state squeaked ahead of New Mexico, which spent $25.58 and ranked 51st. Florida came in third from last at $38.17, and the national average was $103.53.When you look at total dollars spent, Texas ranked 10th in 2006, spending about $805 million.Aware of the state's shortcomings in health care services, Texas legislators allocated $55 million in 2009 to be distributed during the next year (half of it has been already) to expand services at local mental health centers, and through August this year, community mental health centers will receive another $341.8 million in state money through the Department of State Health Services.Twitter sometimes leads to clunky writing because items are limited to 140 characters per tweet. In this case, though, Katz sliced information to give it more impact. Sure, he was only off by one state, but that was the difference between Texas ranking last and not, an important detail when you're showing Texas' rank in ALL CAPS. We rank Katz's statement Mostly True. Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to U.S. President Donald Trump, became the focus of renewed scrutiny in February 2019 when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations relating to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president. sentenced Cohen also admitted he previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year -- by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. misled Following Cohen's dramatic 27 February testimony, some observers, including Trump himself, attempted to portray Cohen as an agent of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was dishonestly smearing Trump on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee whom Trump defeated in 2016. The president highlighted the links between Clinton and Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, even suggesting that the former secretary of state was paying Cohen to provide damning testimony against Trump: Michael Cohens book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clintons lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019 March 1, 2019   We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale law school with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, such as is shown in this July 2016 Fox News panel discussion: attended 2008  Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons. conspiracy theories The meme included a photograph of Hillary Clinton standing alongside two men identified as "Michael Cohen" and "Clinton Foundation Chairman" along with text proclaiming "Michael Cohen used to be Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer and was a member of the Clinton Foundation":   The man identified as Cohen in the meme is indeed Cohen. The man identified as "Clinton Foundation Chairman" is in fact Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic former U.S. representative from Rhode Island and son of the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has never acted as chairman of the Clinton Foundation. The underlying photograph is authentic. Cohen himself tweeted it in June 2014, writing "Being received by two great Americans ... Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound": #tbt being received by two great Americans...Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW #tbt pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 26, 2014 June 26, 2014   The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that It was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy. Washington Post Although they once attended the same campaign fundraiser, we could find no evidence to corroborate the claim that Cohen ever acted as Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, despite our searching federal and New York state court records as well as news archives that extend back decades. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen was publicly hostile towards Clinton, on one occasion tweeting out a meme that included the false claim she had "murdered an ambassador": NBC/WSJ poll has @realDonaldTrump beating #CrookedHillary on #Honesty & #NationalSecurity. This picture says it all! pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV @realDonaldTrump #CrookedHillary #Honesty #NationalSecurity pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 28, 2016 June 28, 2016  On another occasion, Cohen tweeted at Clinton to say "When you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free":   Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations. deleted The Clinton Foundation does not have a membership structure, so it is unclear what the precise meaning is of the claim that Cohen was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, but we also found no evidence that he has ever had any formal or informal association with that organization. We contacted representatives for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Michael Cohen in order to definitively clarify the veracity of the February 2019 meme, but unfortunately none of them responded in time for publication. For that reason, we issue a rating of "Unproven." Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Judge Gives Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen 3 Years in Prison."
  Associated Press.  12 December 2018. Tucker, Eric et al.  "Trump's Ex-Lawyer Admits Lies About Russian Real Estate Deal."
  Associated Press.  30 November 2018. Schwartzman, Paul.  "Michael Cohen's Secret Agenda."
  The Washington Post.  9 February 2019. Palma, Bethania.  "Did Michael Cohen Tweet at Hillary Clinton That Room and Board Will Be Free When She Goes to Prison?"
  Snopes.com.  22 August 2018. Criminals, beware. Just because you got away with an illegal activity doesnt mean the IRS isnt going to come after your earnings. Thats because just ahead of the 2021 tax season, the IRS released guidelines that required taxpayers claim items they have stolen, as well as earnings from illegal activities.  The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. And went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax szn is around the corner.  publications joked running out of time  And its true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under other income  categorized as self-employment activity  required to be reported to the federal tax agency.  Publication 17 general rules  Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   "Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity," read the 2021 the IRS guidelines. The guidelines also require that those who steal property must report fair market value as income in the year that the item was stolen. Of course, one can avoid paying taxes on such items so long as the person returns them to the person they were stolen from in the first place.   Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   The handy regulations also list how to report embezzled funds, notes that bribes are considered nondeductible expenses, and notes that kickbacks, side commissions, and push money must also be included in the Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from self-employment activity. Its not just items or earnings obtained through illegal activities. That watch you found in the gym locker room? Yep, its taxable.  If you find and keep property that doesnt belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure trove), its taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year its your undisputed possession, noted the IRS. Snopes spoke with an accountant who said that while the reporting requirements themselves aren't new, there was previously a separate form specifically for reporting illegal activity income. It's unclear to what extent people actually used the form in the past. Its not exactly clear whether law enforcement will be given information about individuals who report income from illegal activities. What is clear is that anyone under the age of 65 who made more than $12,550 in 2021 is required to file by April 18, 2022.  Sources Dolan, Debra. Time Is Running out to Return Stolen Goods to Avoid Paying Taxes on Them. Https://Www.Wdbj7.Com, https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/12/29/time-is-running-out-return-stolen-goods-avoid-paying-taxes-them/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. IRS Asks That Criminals Provide Its Cut of Stolen Property, Illegal Income. KXXV, 29 Dec. 2021, https://www.kxxv.com/news/local-news/irs-asks-that-criminals-provide-its-cut-of-stolen-property-illegal-income. Publication 17 (2021), Your Federal Income Tax | Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. Stole Something? IRS Says Stolen Property and Bribes Must Be Reported as Income. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/12/28/irs-says-stolen-property-must-reported-and-twitter-goes-wild/9035694002/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. Topic:  A discussion of the history and various types of chain letters. Origins:  The practice of circulating letters to other parties beyond their original recipients has existed for centuries, so pinpointing the exact origin of chain letters is problematic. While all manner of written materials (letters, speeches, eye-witness accounts, polemics, recipes, cures, prayers) have in the past been circulated to ever-widening circles of recipients, the first full-fledged chain letter recorded by Daniel W. VanArsdale in his massive archive of the genre is dated 1888. If we accept that a true chain letter must contain within its text an explicit instruction to the reader to make copies of the mailing and put them into the hands of a specified number of new recipients, that 1888 date is a defensible notch on the timeline of  first archive  history to point to as the moment of origin. If, however, we're willing to settle for an implied instruction topass the item to others for their benefit, protection, or well-being, certain written communications dating to the Middle Ages could fairly be considered the first of this sort. In them, their writers set down what they believed to be useful cures, on the understanding that such missives were to be recopied by those who received them then distributed to those people's loved ones, who in turn would themselves recopy these wisdoms to hand to their nearest and dearest. These letters were also sold by peddlers and fortune tellers. The cures detailed therein were typically combinations of recipes for simple nostrums and special prayers to be recited as the concoctions were mixed or administered. Our modern world sees chain letters of a variety of descriptions circulated by surface mail, fax machine, and in e-mail. While folk cures and accompanying prayers have dropped from favor (as medical information and resources became easier to access, such intelligences became less vital), other sorts of "Send this to five of your friends!" mailings emerged to fill this gap.  Contemporary chain letters fall into five broad categories:  Money-generating (aka pyramid or Ponzi schemes) Luck-generation (or ill luck avoidance)  Altruistic Something for nothing Humor Money-generating (pyramid or Ponzi scheme) chain letters hold out the promise of untold riches to those gulled into participating in their circulation. In their most common form, recipients are instructed to send a token set dollar figure ($5, for example) to the name at the top of the group's roll call, strike that name and address from the list of those involved, add their own to the base of the register, recopy the amended letter, and mail it to five of their acquaintances. If all goes according to plan, their small investment will reap them a fortune once their names percolate to the top of the list. (Pyramid schemes exist in many forms and go by many names. Deserving of particular mention are "gifting circles" or "gifting clubs" wherein folks pay substantial chunks of cash [$5,000, for example] to be included on a chart of like-minded investors, the object being that as new people are added behind them, they will move higher on the diagram one tier at a time until ultimately they occupy the top spot, at which moment they will receive the pool of money accumulated behind them.  Such endeavors have operated under the names of "Elite Activity," "Women Empowering Women," "The Dinner Club," "Spirit of Giving" and so many more that we couldn't possibly ever list them all.) So much can go wrong with pyramid contrivances that their pitfalls hardly needs explaining. First, for pyramid investments to work, the world would need an endless supply of people, each of them with money in hand and determined to participate in the process. Because each level of the pyramid increases exponentially the throng of investors involved, the numbers soon lose meaning. For instance, suppose the money-generating come-on you received in the mail displayed five names. If everyone in the chain had followed instructions and mailed it to five of their friends, by the time it reached you it had already been through 3,905 pairs of hands, and that only provided the first person listed was the one who began the progression. Add one more level (either from having a sixth name on the roll or through one of the names having already been moved off from the top), and the number involved jumps to 19,530. Add two, and it reaches 97,655. Second, not everyone is honest, so there will always be those who will simply insert their names near the top of the roll rather than at its base. Names added honestly, therefore, will fail to move up past this ever-changing invisible ceiling (as new people enter the chain, they too will try this trick). Also, that someone receives the circular and passes it along to five acquaintances does not necessarily mean he sent his requisite sum to the name heading the roster.  However, the biggest argument against money-generating chain letters is their illegality. Missives that request money or other items of value and promise substantial returns to the participants are against the law. Sending them through the mail (or delivering them in person or by computer, but mailing money to participate) violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302, of the Postal Lottery Statute.  At various times the unscrupulous have tried to circumvent the aspects of money-generating chain letters that render them illegal. One common attempt is the inclusion of the additional step of having participants send recipe cards or other relatively-worthless small items along with the cash, thereby transforming the process into a legitimate enterprise wherein those particular trifles are being vended. Another is to go the opposite way, that is, label all monies involved as "gifts" (see section above about gifting clubs). Yet another is to process as much of the proposition as possible via non-postal routes. However, no matter what technology or plausible-sounding subterfuge (e.g.; sale of credit reports or mailing lists) is used, if at any point anything passes by surface mail, the entire maneuver becomes illegal. Says the USPS: USPS Recently, high-tech chain letters have begun surfacing. They may be disseminated over the Internet, or may require the copying and mailing of computer disks rather than paper. Regardless of what technology is used to advance the scheme, if the mail is used at any step along the way, it is still illegal. An example of a "money generating" chain letter: [Collected via surface mail, 1975] DO YOU NEED $8,000? ? ? ? ? ?Let Bill Nelson tell you how I have run one of these promotion letters  four times in the past year. The First time I received $7,000 in cash and around $7,800 the other three. It this letter is continued as it should be, everyone profits!  Yes, and don't worry about financing or paying money back.  After the first time, you'll see what I mean, and next time you will be more eager and glad.  Now, let me give you the complete story and details.  Please forward them and in about 30 days you will be $8,000 richer.  This letter will pay up to $8,000 because there are only four names at all times.  Three moves and you are in a position to receive one dollar from each participant.  This chain letter was initiated by William Neham from Nashville, Tennessee, for the purpose of investment capital.  But, now this has been expanded.  Your participation is one dollar to the first person or firm in the Number One position below, while omitting the name to whom you sent the dollar.  Then, move the list of names up one place and place your name at the bottom.  Mail a copy of this letter to 20 new prospects.  MAIL YOUR LETTERS within 48 HOURS AND DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN.  When your name reaches the Number One position, it will be your turn to collect the fees. They will be sent to you by 8,000 persons like yourself.  Please DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN BECAUSE IT REALLY WORKS!!  In fact, I guarantee it, provided you do not break the chain and follow the simple rules above.  Try it and see.  You are investing ONLY, ONE DOLLAR, and that is all you can lose.  Be sure to copy this letter completely. Don't leave any of it out.  Send your report to Imperial Sales Company, 3096 Ivey Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee 37914.  Let us know when your fee was sent and how much you received within nine days.  We have at the present time almost 100% return to the people carrying out this letter promotion.  The majority received $7,800.  If four names should be listed on your promotion, the one in Number One position is omitted, after you send him your one dollar. Then, put your name and address in the Number Four position.  $8,000 is capital absolutely free!  Send letters only to people who have secretaries or whom you personally consider "Doers." Look  20 times 20 times 20 equals 8,000!!!!. While money-generating chain letters flourish in both the off- and online worlds, "Make Money Fast!" hustles have become so much a part of online culture that they have spawned any number of parodies. This next example is one such howler we particularly treasure: [Collected on the Internet, 1998] MAKE CLUBS FAST Recent evidence has come to light that suggests that pyramid style chain letters may have pre-dated Dave Rhodes by a considerable margin. Palaentologists recently deciphered the following, painted on a cave wall on the slopes of Kilimanjaro. MAKE SPIKY CLUBS FAST!!! Hello, not-tribe-member. Urk name Urk. Many moons ago, Urk in bad way. Urk kicked out of cave by Thag. Thag bigger than Urk, Thag take Urk spiky club, Urka (Urk wo-man). Urk not able kill deer, must eat leaves, berries. Urk flee from wolves. Today, Urk big chief. Urk have best cave, many wives, many spiky clubs. Urk tell how. WHAT DO: make one spiky club and take to cave places below. Add own cave place to bottom of list, take cave place off top. Put new message on walls many caves. Wait. Many clubs soon come! This not crime! Urk ask shaman, gods say okay. HERE LIST: 1) UrkFirst caveOlduvai Gorge few) Thag (not that Thag, other Thag)old dead treeby lake shaped like mammoth few) Ogbig rock with overhangnear pig game trail Many) Zogriver caveswhere river meet big water Urk hope not-tribe-member do what Urk say do. That only way it work. While Urk and his quest for spiky clubs leaves a smile on our faces, the second sort of chain letters provokes the opposite response: a worried frown. Even the most rational and level-headed can't help but feel a bit uneasy when they drop luck-generation chain letters into the nearest trash bin. This type of imploration, which promises good luck even as it threatens ill fortune to rain down on the heads of those who fail to speed it on its way, tends to follow a standard outline. (Not all chain letters of this ilk scrupulously adhere to this formula; certain elements may be omitted in some of the entreaties you encounter.)  Invocation:  The letter begins with an admonition to pray, trust the Lord, or kiss someone as an expression of love.  Origins:  A description of the person who began the letter (a priest, a saint, a sea captain, a doctor) and where (Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands) is given. Often included is a claim of the letter's having been around the world a stated number of times.  Success Story:  Accounts of the happy circumstances of a few people who followed instructions to send the letter on its way are given, with their rewards (financial windfall, sudden luck in matters of romance, miraculous recovery from illness) described in glowing detail.  Punishment Story:  Accounts are given of the setbacks or tragedies (job loss, broken heart, injury or death) that befell a few people who ignored the letter or threw it away.  Instruction and Promise:  The recipient is told how many copies of the letter to distribute and is reassured that good luck will swiftly follow. An example of a contemporary "luck generation" chain letter sent by e-mail.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] CASE 1:  Kelly Sedey had one wish, for her boyfriend of three years, David Marsden, to propose to her.  Then one day when she was out to lunch David proposed!  She accepted, but then had to leave because she had a meeting in 20 min.  When she got to her office, she noticed on her computer she had e-mail.  She checked it, the usual stuff from her friends, but then she saw one that she had never gotten before. was this letter.  She *simply deleted it without even reading it all. BIG MISTAKE!  Later that evening, she received a phone call from the police. It was about DAVID!  He had been in an accident with an 18 wheeler.  He didn't survive. CASE 2:  Take Katie Robbenson. She received this letter and being the believer that she was, she sent it to a few of her friends but didn't have enough e-mail addresses to send out the full 10 that you must. Three days later, Katie went to a masquerade ball. Later that night when she left to get to her car to go home, she was killed on the spot by a hit-and-run drunk driver. CASE 3:  Richard S. Willis sent this letter out within 45 minutes of reading it.  Not even 4 hours later walking along the street to his new job interveiw with a really big company, when he ran into Cynthia Bell, his secret love for 5 years.  Cynthia came up to him and told him of her passionate crush on him that she had had on him for 2 years.  Three days later, he proposed to her and they got married.  Cynthia and Richard are Still married with three children, happy as ever! This is the letter: You must send this on in 3 hours after reading the letter to 10 different people.  If you do this, you will receive unbeleveably good luck in love.  The person that you are most attracted to will soon return your feelings. If you do not, bad luck will rear it's ugly head at you. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!  You have read the warnings, seen the cases, and the consiquences.  You MUST send this on or face dreadfuly bad luck. *NOTE*  The more people that you send this to, the better luck you will have. P.S.  I did not make this up,someone sent it to me and I am passing it on!  You Send it by clicking forward on the side The avoidance of ill luck features in numerous chain letters, especially the "crazed killer" sort prized by prepubescent girls who delight in forwarding "a crazed killer or vengeful spirit will come for you if you don't forward this message to others" tales. These next examples were sent by text message via cell phone: [Collected via e-mail, September 2009] A picture of a girl with a graduation cap on the caption read: "Hi, my name is Alexis, I am 7 years old about 1 year ago me and my dad got into a big fight, he slit my throat and threw me down the sewer.  There was this girl named Alissia and she got the same text message you are getting now and she just erased it and didn't think about it.  Later on, around midnight, she heard laughing coming from her bathroom and she quickly sent that message to 10 people.  Later on that night, her parents heard laughing and cutting.  When they came it to check in the bathroom, Alissia's blood was everywhere.  Now that you have read this message about Alissia's death, I must kill you too unless you send this message to 10 people  no send backs.  I'll be waiting for you at midnight if you don't do this.  don't ignore this. once a little girl was so obsessed with taking pictures of herself and one day she took a picture of herself and when she looked at herself she thought something wasn't right. she heard a girl laughing and turned... this was the last picture she took before she went missing. they found her in the backyard with scratches and blood everywhere... one girl named Aliie dint belive this and deleted it. that night she heard laughing and went and forwarded this message, but it was too late. an hour later her parents found her in the bathtub covered in blood. fwd this to ten ppl or she will be waiting under your bed at 12 tonight. if you don't belive it, then save the pictures and zoom in to the right bottom corner. NO SEND BACK!!!!Piggy back 09 Altruistic chain letters are those that present themselves as seeking benefit for others rather than the financial enrichment or improvement of luck of their recipients/forwarders. Into this category fall prayers for the suffering and collections made on behalf of charitable groups or the needy themselves. While this form of the genre might indeed be the oldest (according to Daniel W. VanArsdale, the first full-fledged chain letter was of this sort; it called for the donation of dimes to "poor whites in the region of the Cumberlands"), the Internet has added new expressions of it. Many "dying child" hoaxes circulate online, each of them asserting every forward of their supplications will result in  benefactors (either named charities or corporations or unnamed millionaires) directing set sums towards the care of the stricken youngsters. While these lack the specificity of "Send this to four people" instructions (they instead direct recipients to "Forward this to everyone you know"), the languishing children are imaginary, and the forwarders add nothing of themselves to the mix (neither prayers nor donations), they are a close enough fit with the altruistic class of chain letters to be considered a legitimate variant.  first dying child Closer yet are the myriad prayer requests (e.g., the Delaney Parrish appeal) that have sprung to life on the Internet. While the "Send this to ten people" command is still absent ("Send to as many as you can" and its ilk being used instead), the people being pled for often do exist, with their travails often as described, and those moved to keep the chain going are adding something of themselves (their petitions to God) to the process.  Delaney Parrish Similarly, various appeals of the "dying child intent upon collecting specific items" nature (e.g.; the Craig Shergold appeal for business cards) are also close fits.  While not all entreaties of this sort are on the up-and-up, a fair number are  the children and their situations are real, as are their requests. Those participating in these chains not only pass along the requests to their circles of acquaintance but also themselves donate the items requested and transport them to the youngsters.  Craig Shergold Moving to the "something for nothing" category, we find online appeals aimed at augmenting the bank accounts or wardrobes of their participants, bringing them fame, or entertaining them. Of the first sort, the granddaddy of them all is the e-mail tracking hoax: Bill Gates is testing an e-mail tracking program and for taking part by forwarding his note you will receive $1,000. (Or Disney will reward you with a trip for two to Disney World. Or Nike will give you free shoes. Or Veuve-Clicquot will bless you with some gratis champagne. Or Applebees will treat you to a dinner for you and your date. Or, well, the list is endless.) These differ from "money-generating" chain letters in one important way: those involved do not themselves send any of their own money or possessions to anyone else, they merely forward the leg-pulls in the expectation that by doing so the promised goodies will come their way. e-mail tracking A less mercenary example of a "something for nothing" chain letter that plays upon the urge to seek fame rather than fortune is the Guinness World Book of Records hoax which states as its goal the establishment of a world record. For years, children have been gulled into participating in these mailings by the promise of their names being listed in that fabled book if the chain is kept alive long enough for a record to be set. More recently a snail mail version has supplemented the e-mail jape of the same design, so the hoax exists in both the offline and online worlds.  Guinness "Something for nothing" e-mail chain letters that hold out as the forwarders' reward the promise of entertainment are a form of practical joke of the "Made you look foolish" variety. Potential victims are told their sending these e-mails to the requisite number of new people (as spelled out in proposition) will cause them to receive the next installments of intriguing stories they have become caught up in reading or their computers to spontaneously begin playing either humorous animated clips (e.g. Ronald McDonald beating up the Taco Bell dog) or videos of lusted-after celebrities caught off-guard doing naughty things. But of course the promised carrots never arrive; the next chapters of novelettes fail to mail themselves and videos don't spring to life. We detail a great many such hokey come-ons in our Clip Artless article. Clip Artless We now come to the final category of chain letter: Humor. Though these offerings mimic the form taken by their money-generating cousins, those who receive them don't mistake them for anything other than jokes. These mailings are solely meant to provoke rueful smiles or outright guffaws among those they are happily flung to; they are not intended to prompt recipients to actually mail off the items or persons described in hopes of getting back a great many more of like nature. For instance, one well-known humor chain letter instructs dissatisfied wives to bundle up their good-for-nothing husbands and mail them to the woman whose name appears at the head of the list; when the senders' names arise to the top spot they are guaranteed to receive thousands of similarly-discarded spouses, some of which might prove worth keeping (the implication being that most will not). Yet don't break the chain, admonishes the letter  one woman who did got her own husband back! husbands Barbara "return to sender" Mikkelson Additional information:      Ponzi Schemes  (Securities and Exchange Commission)      Pyramid Schemes  (Securities and Exchange Commission)      Gifting Clubs  (Federal Trade Commission)  Last updated:  27 September 2009    Sources:   Degh, Linda.  Legend and Belief.   London: Souvenir Press, 1978.  0-285-63396-1  (pp. 189-193).    Waring, Philippa.  A Dictionary of Omens and Superstitions.   Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001.  0-253-33929-4  (p. 52). Claim:  Video shows a suspect in a police shooting committing suicide in an interview room.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Is this video real? GRAPHIC IMAGE WARNING: Video shows a suicide by gunshot.  Origins:   Movies and television have planted sensationalized images of certain phenomena into the public consciousness, to the extent that when most of us see the real thing, we're disappointed that it seems so mundane.  In films and television programs, automobile crashes are always slam-bang affairs that inevitably end with one or more cars bursting into flame and exploding; thunder is always a very loud, sharp, and short report which occurs simultaneously with a bolt of lightning (rather  than a slow, distant, gradually increasing rumbling which arrives well after the lightning flash); and gunshots are usually depicted as producing ear-splitting volumes of sound and, when aimed at another human being, resulting in plenty of gore and splatter. It's no wonder, then, that when the above-displayed video of a detainee shooting himself while in police custody began to circulate, many viewers were skeptical of its authenticity  by Hollywood standards, it's so tame as to be almost surreal.   As depicted in the video, an uncuffed suspect enters an interrogation room and sits down in a chair, followed by an officer who dumps some keys and sunglasses on a table, checks his cell phone, and leaves the room momentarily.  The officer returns several seconds later with a bottle of water and a cup of coffee, then hands the water bottle to the suspect, checks his cell phone again, picks up the coffee, and exits the room a second time  leaving the suspect alone and unrestrained, and the door open.  The suspect takes a couple of swigs of water, then calmly reaches into his pants with his other hand, pulls out a large-caliber handgun, and shoots himself in the left temple. But what we see in the video is nothing like what most of us might expect.  The soon-to-be suicide victim is neither visibly nervous nor distraught as he freely pulls out a gun and places it against his head.  (He even replaces the cap on the water bottle before pulling the trigger.)  The weapon does not produce an ear-shattering concussive   sound in the small room, blood and brain matter don't splatter all over the walls, and the victim's body isn't hurtled out of the chair and onto the floor.  The gun makes a sharp popping sound as the suspect shoots himself, blood streams from the victim's head and mouth, his hands drop the gun and water bottle to the floor, and his body slumps but slightly in the chair. Even more unusual to many viewers is the officer's reaction to this event.  He doesn't respond with any of the emotions most of us might feel, such as fear, panic, terror, or disgust.  Nor does he rush to the victim's aid, check him for signs of life, summon help, or otherwise raise an alarm.  "Oh, fuck," he exclaims as he re-enters the room, puts his coffee down on the table, and surveys the scene for a second or two, then adds "Holy fuck."  When a second (unseen) officer inquires  "What did he do?" he responds with, "Nobody shook him" (i.e., nobody searched the suspect for weapons), then calmly retrieves the keys and sunglasses and leaves the room.  Throughout the short video, the officer's actions seem almost nonchalant: he doesn't act the least bit shocked or horrified that a human being has just died a violent death right in front of him. Instead, the foremost thought on his mind seems to be concern that someone's going to get into big trouble for the oversight of allowing a detainee to retain a weapon. (We realize, of course, that all of this would be viewed quite differently from a police perspective.  Officers undergo thorough instruction in the handling and use of firearms, they generally see far more blood and violence on the job than most of us will experience in our lifetimes, and they're trained to respond to emergency situations by following proper procedure rather than reacting with fear or panic.  We're simply presenting the average person's reaction to this video, as reflected in the e-mail we've received from readers who have viewed it.) The circumstances behind this video took place on 19 December 2003, when 47-year-old Ricardo Alfonso Cerna was stopped for a traffic violation at about 9:30 A.M. in Muscoy (a residential suburb of San Bernardino County, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles).  Cerna fled the scene (in his car and then on foot) before shooting the pursuing officer, sheriff's deputy Michael Parham, twice in the abdomen.  (Deputy Parham survived the shooting.)   Cerna was soon arrested by San Bernardino police and taken to sheriff's headquarters on Third Street, where he was placed in an interview room just before 11 A.M. in preparation for questioning by Bobby Dean, head of the San Bernardino County sheriff's homicide unit.   When Dean stepped out of the room briefly to speak with a detective in the hallway, Cerna pulled the .45-caliber handgun out of his pants and shot himself in the head.  Evidently a chain of mistakes led to Cerna, a shooting suspect, being taken into custody without either the arresting officers or the booking officers discovering he had a large, heavy handgun concealed on his person: [Sheriff Gary] Penrod said deputies failed to adequately search Cerna before he was put in a car, and again when he was transferred to the homicide division office. Each receiving deputy may have wrongly assumed the previous officer adequately searched the man, he said.  Penrod said confusion among the three agencies involved  the Highway Patrol, San Bernardino police and the Sheriff's Department  may have contributed to the oversight. "Obviously there was a mistake made," Penrod said by phone. "It was hectic and it was a guy who was cuffed by somebody other than the transporting officer. (This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it  the completely implausible scenario of officers' deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.) executed returned As to how the video of Cerna's suicide made it onto the Internet, sheriff's spokesman Chip Patterson said:  [A] ranking official at the department was authorized to show the video during a presentation on officer safety at the FBI's training academy in Quantico, Va., several months ago. Following the presentation, dozens of copies of the video were made at the request of law-enforcement agencies across the country. Officials of those agencies wanted the copies for training purposes. Sheriff's officials do not know who might have leaked the video to the public.  Some of the officers involved in Cerna's arrest and handling were subjected to disciplinary action, but sheriff's officials wouldn't comment on the specifics of that action or identify the officers involved.  Last updated:  19 January 2014    Nelson, Joe.  "Sheriff's Detainee's Suicide Put on Web."   San Bernardino County Sun.  21 December 2004.    Associated Press.  "Arrestee Pulls Hidden Gun, Kills Self."    CNN.com.  20 December 2003.