Three Former Presidents Mocked Trump on Twitter?
In January 2018, shortly after the publication of the book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, which suggested that President Trump was unfit for office, the President took to Twitter to defend his mental stability: ....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018 January 6, 2018  ....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018 January 6, 2018  Trump's tweets sparked a flurry of political punditry (and fodder for comedians). On 8 January 2018, the Facebook page "Politicked" published an image purportedly showing former presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton mocking Trump's claim that he became President of the United States on his first try: published   Politicked describes itself as a "left wing political satire" group, which creates its own "original and biting memes." The images of these purported tweets are fake. We searched the Twitter timelines for Obama, Bush, and Clinton and didn't find any of these messages. It's also unlikely that the three former presidents posted and subsequently deleted the tweets. Messages sent from President Obama and Clinton are routinely retweeted thousands of times (Bush hasn't used the service since 2010) yet we found no retweets linking back to the original messages.  Obama Bush Clinton Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely for these three former presidents to coordinate a social media joke simply to mock President Trump, before getting cold feed and deleting their posts without being detected by a mainstream media source.  It is true that Obama, Clinton, and Bush all won presidential elections on their first attempts. Trump's claim that he won the presidency on his first try, however, is a matter of debate (and of how serious one considers his first attempt). He ran for the nomination of the Reform Party in 2000 and appeared on the primary ballot in two states. Trump withdrew from the race before the election. 2000 states Although the 2000 campaign was the only time Trump actually entered any primary races prior to 2016, the real estate mogul toyed with the idea so often that his political aspirations found their way onto the popular cartoon show The Simpsons.  toyed aspirations Helmore, Edward.  "How Trumps Political Playbook Evolved Since He First Ran for President in 2000."
  The Guardian.  5 February 2017. TV Guide.  "Here's a Timeline of Every Time Donald Trump Ran for President."
  18 July 2015. Helmore, Edward.  "How Trumps Political Playbook Evolved Since He First Ran for President in 2000."
  The Guardian.  5 February 2017.
For most of us who watched the televised Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (better known as the "Iran-Contra hearings," held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages, then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua) in 1987, the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987. Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family. The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.) occupation Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee: testify Abu Nidal Abu Nidal is, as I am sure you on the Intelligence Committee know, the principal, foremost assassin in the world today. He is a brutal murderer. And I would like to just, if I may, just read to you a little bit about Mr. Abu Nidal ... "Abu Nidal, the radical Palestinian guerrilla leader, linked to last Friday's attacks in Rome and Vienna"  that was the so-called Christmas massacre in which 19 people died and 200 were wounded  "is the world's most wanted terrorist." That is the Christian Science Monitor. When you look at his whole career, Abu Nidal makes the infamous terrorist Carlos [the Jackal] look like a Boy Scout. Abu Nidal himself, quoted in Der Spiegel, "Between America and us, there exists a war to the death. In the coming months and years, Americans will be thinking about us." "For sheer viciousness, Abu Nidal has few rivals in the underworld of terrorism." Newseek. Our own State Department, and we have copies of these that we can make available for insertion in the record, but the State Department summary on Abu Nidal, not exactly an overstatement, notes that his followers, who number an estimated 500, have killed as many as 181 persons, and wounded more than 200, in two years. Abu Nidal does not deny these things. We also have an exhibit that we can provide for you that shows what Abu Nidal did in the Christmas Massacres. One of the people killed in the Christmas Massacre  and I do not wish to overdramatize this  but the Abu Nidal terrorists in Rome who blasted the 11-year-old American Natasha Simpson to her knees, deliberately zeroed in and fired an extra burst at her head just in case. I want you to know that I'd be more than willing ... to meet Abu Nidal on equal terms anywhere in the world. There's an even deal for him. OK? But I am not willing to have my wife and my four children meet Abu Nidal or his organization on his terms. To emphasize his point, North showed the committee a blow-up of a newspaper article detailing the atrocities of Abu Nidal and recalled that an 11-year-old girl named Natasha Simpson, the daughter of an Associated Press news editor, had been gunned down (along with four other Americans) during an attack by an Abu Nidal group on the El Al terminal at the Rome airport in December 1985. North also later claimed that an attempt on his life had been made five months before his congressional testimony at the instigation of Libyan leader Mohmmar Qadaffi: Mohmmar Qadaffi In February 1987, Muammar Ghadaffi ordered his thugs to carry out a threat made against me in 1986. Thankfully, the FBI intercepted the well-armed perpetrators on the way to our home, and my family and I were sequestered for a time on a military base. The orders from Tripoli were delivered to a terrorist cell in Virginia  at the offices of The People's Committee for Libyan Students. So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation: FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.NOVEMBER 28, 2001OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987. A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW: 1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING. 2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K. 3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS  NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). 4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS. 5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA. 6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED). 7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED. SEMPER FIDELIS,OLIVER L. NORTH Variations:  One variant of this item concluded with the statement "The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip. If anyone is interested, the Senator turned out to be none other than ... Al Gore." Senator Al Gore of Tennessee was not a member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and therefore did not take part in the questioning of any witnesses before the Committee. Additional information:    Fisk, Robert.  "Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace."
  The [London] Independent.  6 December 1993  (p. 10). Fritz, Sara and Karen Tumulty.  "North's Attempt at Cover-Up Is Told."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 June 1987  (p. A1). Ibrahim, Youssef.  "Saudi Stripped of Citizenship for Funding Fundamentalists."
  The [London] Guardian.  11 April 1994  (p. 8). North, Oliver.  "Tackling Terrorism."
  TownHall.com.  9 June 2000. Tackling Terrorism North, Oliver L.
 Under Fire: An American Story.  New York: HarperCollins, 1992  (pp. 341-344). Pincus, Walter.  "North Says He and His Superiors Lied About Contra Aid."
  The Washington Post.  9 July 1987  (p. A1). Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall vote this month, prompting pundits to weigh in on what that means for public sector unions that had campaigned aggressively for his ouster. Remember, Walker is the Republican governor who pushed through a number of changes unfriendly to organized labor in the Badger State, including an end to automatic union dues deductions from public paychecks.Here in the Beaver State,Steve Bucksteinof theCascade Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes limited government,tweeted: Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership? The tweet links to a June 14 online post by Buckstein called End Forced Unionism Now, where he quotes from an opinion column by syndicated writerCharles Krauthammer, also published in The Oregonian:Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.The question is a simple one: Did membership in Wisconsins American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees drop by 50 percent since dues became optional?Heres a quick reminder of what happened in Wisconsin: In March 2011, Walker signed a bill that drastically changed bargaining rights for some but not all state, local and school employees. As pointed out by Krauthammer, dues are no longer taken out of paychecks automatically, curtailing the unions money base.According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, the law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. Unions have to recertify every year with fresh votes. And he increased employee contributions for pensions and health care.We asked Buckstein for his sourcing; he said he relied on the Krauthammer column. Krauthammer cites no source for the information, but a quick check online shows a May 30 news article in the Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Unions See Ranks Drop Ahead of Recall Vote.The reporters write that membership in the states second-largest public-sector union fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME's figures. That is indeed more than half its membership. Another story in the Wall Street Journal a few days later puts the drop at 45 percent.The union disputed the figures then, and disputes them now to PolitiFact Oregon. However, Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, declined to give updated figures, saying that even people on the inside dont have an accurate count. Certainly numbers are down, they say. (A spokesman for Walker said the state does not have figures. )But what the union really objects to is the underlying premise in the syndicated column, and by association, Bucksteins post: That premise is that union membership numbers dropped dramatically because people were given a choice between joining a union or not joining a union.According to the original Wall Street Journal news article, some members didnt re-up because of the financial pinch of health care and pension costs. Bargaining was so curtailed that anotherfact check by PolitiFact Wisconsinfound four experts who agreed the law could mean the end of some public unions in Wisconsin.Buckstein acknowledges that numbers probably went down more in Wisconsin because of the changes as a whole. But he stands by the idea that more members may opt out when deductions become optional.Oregon is a great example, he says. A check with the Department of Administrative Services finds that 24 percent of the more than 24,000 people eligible to be represented by the states two biggest state government unions pay a share in lieu of member dues. In other words, they pay in, but are not members. The fair-share option may not be available to all employees, and depends on the terms of the bargaining contract. In either case, the money is deducted automatically from workers paychecks.People on various sides of the political spectrum have their own theories about why there was a decrease in Wisconsin: higher premiums, limited bargaining subjects, complicated recertification votes, optional dues, all or some, or none of the above. We cant rule on reason.What we can rule on is that membership has gone down about 50 percent, according to news reports, since Walker implemented his changes. That decrease may or may not hold when numbers finally shake out. The tweet is accurate, but needs additional information.We rule the statement Mostly True. As if Americans hadn't accumulated enough dark suspicions about their government over the past 50-odd years, along comes an Internet factoid holding that the United States government intentionally (and fatally) poisoned more than 10,000 of its own citizens between 1926 and 1933:   The alarming claim is that the U.S. government added poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it during Prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933 in which it was illegal to produce, transport, or sell alcoholic beverages anywhere in the United States. That didn't mean people stopped making, buying, and drinking booze  they just did it illegally. As noted in virtually every U.S. history textbook ever written, one of the many negative unintended consequences of Prohibition was a booming black market in alcohol that law enforcement was never able to subdue. Prohibition To the question at hand: Did the federal government really add poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it? It did, in fact. The government did purposely add poisonous substances to alcohol, and this did result in thousands of deaths during Prohibition. The story of how that came to pass is longer and more nuanced than the Internet meme suggests, however. And it began well before the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land. According to Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York (Penguin Press, 2010), the practice was called "denaturing". It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits. 2010 Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol ("wood alcohol") to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too awful to drink. One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition, Blum explained in a 2010 Slate article, was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous: article To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly. By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisonskerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be addedup to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly. TIME magazine's 2008 Prohibition retrospective described the horrendous consequences of an unregulated  and, in many instances, purposely adulterated  black-market liquor supply: retrospective It wasn't just the violent Prohibition-era gang wars that were dangerous to Americans drinking homemade moonshine and bathtub gin. According to the Dec. 26, 1922 edition of the New York Times, five people were killed in the city on Christmas Day from drinking "poisoned rum." That was only the beginning. By 1926, according to Prohibition, by Edward Behr, 750 New Yorkers perished from such poisoning and hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis. On New Year's Day 1927, 41 people died at New York's Bellevue Hospital from alcohol-related poisonings. Oftentimes, they were drinking industrial methanol, otherwise known as wood alcohol, which was a legal but extremely dangerous poison. One government report said that of 480,000 gallons of liquor confiscated in New York in 1927, nearly all contained poisons. Although it is inaccurate in the sense that none of this deadly business began in 1926, the factoid we set out to investigate wasn't entirely wrong in citing that year as a pivotal one. Blum points out that the spate of alcohol-related poisonings that culminated in so many fatalities on New Year's Day 1927 actually commenced a week earlier, on Christmas: It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat. Before hospital staff realized how sick he wasthe alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptomthe man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season. As for the claim that some 10,000 people died of alcohol poisoning during the course of Prohibition through its repeal in 1933, that, too, is a figure we can source to Blum (who did not, in the Slate article, specify where this estimate came from): Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people. In sum, federal attempts to reduce the palatability of industrial alcohol came well before Prohibition, and efforts to intensify the risks of consuming it were both well-known and controversial at the time. Such evidence as we've seen does not support the the implication that the government set out to purposely kill drinkers of alcohol, although Prohibition-era lawmakers and public health experts decried what they described as a callous disregard for those who died as result of drinking denatured alcohol. before known Andrews, Evan.  "10 Things You Should Know About Prohibition."
  History.  16 January 2015. Blum, Deborah.  "The Chemist's War."
  Slate.  19 February 2010. Damrau, Frederic, M.D.  "The Truth About Poison Liquor."
  Popular Science Monthly.  April 1927. Norris, Charles, M.D.  "Our Essay In Extermination."
  The North American Review.  December 1928. Rothman, Lily.  "The History of Poisoned Alcohol Includes an Unlikely Culprit: The U.S. Government."
  TIME.  14 January 2015. TIME.  "Top 10 Prohibition Tales: Mortal Moonshine."
  2008. Chicago Tribune.  "Alcohol Gets Double Poison Ration Jan. 1."
  30 December 1926. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. On April 12, 2022, a video went viral on social media that supposedly showed bird poop falling onto U.S. President Joe Biden's shoulder as he was speaking at an event in Iowa. We examined that video and photographs from the event, and collected statements from White House officials and journalists.  Here's what we learned: What landed on Biden's lapel was more likely a corn byproduct than bird poop.  Biden was talking about the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to issue a waiver to allow for the production of E15 (a mixture of gasoline and ethanol) in an effort to lower gas prices, when something wispy and white fell on his left shoulder. A video of the incident quickly went viral on Twitter as many users assumed that a bird had pooped on the president: issue a waiver  But was that really bird poop? Here's what we've been able to find out.  Biden was speaking at POET, a bioprocessing and manufacturing plant in Menlo, Iowa. We have not been able to determine the specific facility in which Biden was speaking, but it's important to note that this was an indoor event (see photo below). POET, a bioprocessing and manufacturing plant Furthermore, Biden was standing directly beside a giant pile of processed corn. In fact, photographs from the event show that corn was actively falling on this pile during Biden's speech:   The above-displayed photograph, taken by Mandel Ngan and available via Getty Images, was captioned: "A mound of processed corn is seen in the background as US President Joe Biden announces steps to ease rising consumer prices at POET Bioprocessing in Menlo, Iowa on April 12, 2022." Mandel Ngan and available via Getty Images Clay Masters, a reporter with Iowa Public Radio, captured additional photos of the scene before Biden's speech.   It certainly seems plausible that what fell onto Biden was a piece of some sort of corn byproduct and not bird poop.  Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper was at the event and told AGWired.com, an agriculture news site, that it was definitely distillers dried grain with solubles or DDGS that fell on Biden's lapel. AG Wired reported: "Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper was an eyewitness in the distillers grains barn with President Biden and he confirmed it was definitely DDGS responsible for spotting the POTUS lapel. "We did see something falling from the ceiling and it landed right there on his lapel and I can confirm it was not a bird dropping," said Cooper, who took this photo at the event which shows the mound of DDGS off to Biden's left side and the spot on his jacket. It came just as President Biden started to talk about products made in America and the amount of corn used at the Menlo, Iowa POET plant." Shortly after this video went viral, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield posted a message on Twitter stating that it was corn, not bird poop, that fell on Biden's shoulder.  posted a message   Bedingfield said: "If you guys knew your way around a corn silo at all, you'd know it was corn." Justin Sink, Bloomberg's White House correspondent, came to the same conclusion, writing: "It was bits of corn flying around from the corn silo; the event was indoors." Justin Sink, Bloomberg's White House correspondent Iowa's Des Moines Register also reported that Biden's jacket was blemished by what he called "distillers grain," not bird poop.  Iowa's Des Moines Register also reported But it wasn't a "feathered fiend" relieving itself as characterized by the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. While there were birds in the "giant barn" where Biden spoke, according to a Des Moines Register photographer who was in the event in Menlo, Iowa, the substance that stained Biden's jacket was in fact distillers grain. Distillers grain is "a co-product of the ethanol production process," according to the Iowa Iowa Corn Growers Association. The grain was piled 20 feet high at the site of Biden's speech. We examined photographs from Reuters, The Associated Press, and Getty Images to get a closer look at this corn/bird poop. Upon closer examination, the "bird poop" appears to be somewhat yellowish in color (like corn) and looks more like dust (i.e., from corn processing) than a liquid (i.e., bird poop).   Here's a slow motion video capturing the moment of impact:  Friedman, Lisa, and Michael D. Shear. Biden Will Allow Summertime Sales of Higher-Ethanol Gas. The New York Times, 12 Apr. 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/business/economy/biden-ethanol-gas.html. The Internet Says a Bird Pooped on Joe Biden in Iowa. Heres What Really Happened. Des Moines Register, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/13/president-joe-biden-bird-poop-menlo-iowa-visit-distillers-grain/7303450001/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Manno, Adam. Bird Poops on Bidens Shoulder during a Speech on Gas Prices in Iowa. Mail Online, 12 Apr. 2022, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10712901/Feathered-fiend-poops-Bidens-shoulder-inside-Iowa-barn-unveils-plan-lower-gas-prices.html. President Joe Biden Announces Policy E-15 Gas At POET Bioprocessing in Menlo. Raccoon Valley Radio - The One to Count On, https://www.raccoonvalleyradio.com/2022/04/13/president-joe-biden-announces-policy-e-15-gas-at-poet-bioprocessing-in-menlo/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. President Joe Biden in Iowa OKs More Ethanol Use to Cut Gas Prices, Pitches Plan to Improve Rural America. Des Moines Register, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/12/joe-biden-president-news-iowa-menlo-e-15-ethanol-gas-prices-fuel-poet-epa-joni-ernst/7289524001/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Remarks by President Biden on Lowering Energy Costs for Working Families. The White House, 12 Apr. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/12/remarks-by-president-biden-on-lowering-energy-costs-for-working-families/. Roche, Darragh. Joe Biden Bird Poop Video Viewed 2M Times as Critics Gleefully Share Clip. Newsweek, 13 Apr. 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-bird-poop-video-viewed-2m-times-critics-gleefully-share-clip-1697470. U.S. President Biden Visits a POET Bioprocessing Plant in Menlo. UnionLeader.Com, https://www.unionleader.com/u-s-president-biden-visits-a-poet-bioprocessing-plant-in-menlo/image_d630c531-5f37-5606-a212-1c21ee2837a0.html. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Updated [April 15, 2022]: Added additional reporting from AG Wired. After the presidenttalked up national job gains, a Central Texas member of Congress suggested things havent been rosy. U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, whose district stretches nearly to Fort Worth, said in a Jan. 12, 2016,responseto the State of the Union address: Its been seven years since President Barack Obama took office. In that time, the United States has accumulated the largest national debt in its history, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency and the executive branch has expanded its power immensely  the president has chosen which laws to enforce and created new ones without Congress approval. Thenational debt, in raw dollars, is at a record high, and Obama has issued provocative executive orders though, PolitiFactfound in 2014, fewer orders than most recent predecessors. A reader asked us if Williams was correct about the country having fewer working adults than when Carter was president from 1977 into January 1981. Just given population growth, could that be? We asked Williams spokesman Vince Zito how Williams reached his conclusion and didnt hear back. In 2012, PolitiFact explored similar territory,finding Mostly Falsea claim that the American workforce was smaller than when Carter was president. The word workforce refers to the absolute number of people employed or seeking work; that tally was way up by 2012 compared with Carters era due to population growth and, through the 1990s, the expansion of working women. Counting workers So, did the number of working adults subsequently plunge to Carter-era levels? No, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose figures indicate that in 1980, around 100 million people were in the civilian workforce. In 2015,bureau figures show, nearly 150 million Americans were in the workforce -- up about 50 percent from Carters last year as president. By phone to our inquiry, economistStephen Roseof the Urban Institute, a former deputy in the Department of Labor, told us Williams claim isnt supported. Not close, Rose said. Achartin the 2015 Economic Report of the President shows 99.3 million people comprised the civilian workforce in 1980 and 146.3 million were in the workforce in 2014. Another bureauchartindicates 149.7 million people in the workforce in December 2015 and also that the workforce increased nearly every year from 1980 through 2015 -- with the exceptions of 1982, 1991, 2002 and 2008 through 2010, a period encompassing the end of George W. Bushs terms and the first two years of Obamas tenure. From 2010, when an Obama-low 139 million people were in the workforce, the count inched to nearly 140 million in 2011; 143 million in 2012; 144 million in 2013 and 146 million in 2014, according to the bureau. Employment-population ratio By another indicator, Rose said, its possible to compare the share of Americans who had jobs in Obamas years with the share of job-holders when Carter was president. The BLS, drawing on results from the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, calculates the employment-population ratio to reflect the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over thats employed. The highest ratio under Obama was 60.6 in January 2009, the month he was sworn in. The lowest ratio on his watch, 58.2, was set in November 2010 and June and July 2011. In Carters four years as president, according to the bureau, the highest ratio, 60.1, was reached in February and December 1979 and the lowest ratio, 57.0, occurred in January 1977, the month he was sworn in (it nudged to 57.2 the next month). Labor force participation We wondered if another indicator might be relevant. That statistic is the civilian labor force participation rate --meaningthe labor force, civilians 16 and older working full- or part-time, divided by the civilian population. According to the BLS, 62.6 percent of the population comprised the labor force in December 2015, the latest month of available figures. While Carter was president, a bureau chart indicates, the participation rate fluctuated from 61.6 percent in January 1977 to 64 percent in January and February 1980. Score one for Williams, though the rate on Obamas watch peaked at 65.8 percent in February 2009--which was higher than any rate in Carters years or the first seven years of successor Ronald Reagans tenure. The rate was 66.5 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989. Labor force changes Theres another chewy issue: Demographics, particularly the aging of the population, have affected changes in the workforce, making comparisons between current times and Carters era tricky. In the 2000 Census, Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so soon -- numbered about 20 million. But thanks to Baby Boomers, that number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, for almost a 50 percent increase. This matters because the more people aged 60 to 69, the more people who pass into retirement age -- or, put another way, leave the labor force. Even though more people proportionally remain in the workforce after retirement age, the difference isnt big enough to cancel out the flood of new retirees. In 2015, Atlantic magazine published a chart contrasting the workforce in October 1977, in Carters first year as president, and June 2015, in the seventh year of Obamas tenure:  SOURCE: Story,How America's Workforce Has Changed Since 1977,the Atlantic, July 2, 2015 (accessed Jan. 21, 2016) Our ruling Williams said that under Obama, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency. This claim doesnt hold up in that far more people were working the past few years than in Carters time as president. According to a government calculation, about the same share of adults was employed during each Democrats presidency. We rate this statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In early-to-mid-March 2019, photographs of President Donald Trump and members of his family posing with Li Yang, a political donor and spa entrepreneur, circulated on social media. The images were used to link the Trumps with a sting operation in Florida. link Yang, who posted a widely seen selfie taken at Trump's 2019 Super Bowl party to her Facebook account, once owned what is now the Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was one of 25 men arrested in February 2019, accused of soliciting sex there in a sweeping, human-trafficking sting that targeted that site and others. selfie sting Kraft, a self-described friend of Trump, faces two counts of misdemeanor solicitation, to which he has pleaded not guilty. friend not guilty Yang no longer owns the establishment in which police say Kraft was caught on camera paying for sex. She has not been charged with a crime. camera Nevertheless, the images of Yang, Trump and members of his family were picked up and used to create an inaccurate meme claiming she is the spa's owner, which was shared with the nearly 8 million followers on the Facebook page belonging to Occupy Democrats on 8 March 2019.Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook page sarcastically discourages followers to share the meme, its administrators also added a "correction" in the post above the image: Occupy Democrats   Yang was swept into the lurid story after images of her with Trump and his family members surfaced on her Facebook page, which, as the Miami Herald reported, "raised questions about who can gain access to the president at his resorts and other private businesses, as well at official venues like fundraisers." reported Some news stories linked Yang to the day spa raided by police by describing her as the "founder," although when the site changed ownership in 2012, its name also changed. Yang sold the business, which at the time was called the Tokyo Day Spa, to Hua Zhang, who changed the name of the establishment to Orchids of Asia upon incorporation in 2012, according to Florida state business records. Zhang, 58, has been charged with prostitution-related counts and has pleaded not guilty. As the Associated Press reported: incorporation not guilty Yang, who goes by Cindy, wasnt charged in the multiagency anti-human trafficking operation that resulted in 25 arrests and shut down 10 Asian day spas in south Florida. None of the spas are registered to Yang or her family. She sold the Jupiter spa around 2013 to Hua Zhang, who has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and running a house of prostitution. Yangs family still owns several south Florida spas. The familys Tokyo Day Spa branches have attracted the attention of at least two police agencies, the Herald reported. Yang told the Herald, which published the photo of her with Trump on Friday (March 8), that she and her family havent broken the law. She said she is out of the business, would soon be relocating to Washington and didnt want any negative news media attention. published the photo of her with Trump Occupy Democrats (OD) Co-Founder Omar Rivero told us in an email he felt he had no choice but to leave the meme live with the correction added to the post. Once an image is posted on Facebook, it can't be replaced or edited. If the image were to continue to circulate with the error even after after OD had deleted it from their page, and if Facebook were to flag the image as false, the deletion would result in a penalty for the page.  "Its a really weird thing that doesn't make sense to me either," he explained. "Normally I would just delete it but I can't risk another hit to our reach [due to a Facebook penalty] over a minor mistake." Blaskey, Sarah, etal."Trump Cheered Patriots to Super Bowl Victory With Founder of Spa Where Kraft Was Busted."
Miami Herald.8 March 2019. Greenlee, Will."Details in Spa Sex, Human Trafficking Released; Neighbor Says Case 'Like a Movie.'"
Treasury Coast Newspapers.20 February 2019. Winter, Tom, and Kesslen, Ben."Patriots Owner Robert Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution."
NBC News.22 February 2019. Nehamas, Nicole, etal."Massage Parlor Magnate Helped Steer Chinese to Trump NYC Fundraiser, Attendee Says."
Miami Herald.9 March 2019. Associated Press."Report: Spa Founder Attended Trumps Super Bowl Party."
8 March 2019. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz sees a consistent pattern of lawlessness from this president and this administration-- unilaterally altering laws and choosing which to enforce, Cruz said in Austin on Jan. 10, 2014. One example, the Texas Republican said, came last summer, when President Barack Obama delayed by a year the Obamacare laws requirement that companies with 50 or more employees provide coverage to their workers. The presidents a big fan of saying, Its the law of the land. We need to follow the law of the land. Oh, really? Lets see, that law of the land says on Jan. 1, 2014, the employer mandate shall kick in for big business, Cruz said at a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference. And yet the president just announced unilaterally, No, were not enforcing this. Im granting an exemption to all of big business. And by the way, this was done -- was this done through a big formal announcement, through an address to the American people: Theres a problem in this law; were going to have to change it? No. It was done through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury on July 3, right before the Fourth of July break. Were not getting into whether laws were broken; not our purview. But we wondered if Cruz accurately captured how the change was revealed. Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton told us by email that Cruz was referring to a July 2, 2013,blog entryon Treasury.gov attributed to Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy. The post said, The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. News coverage that day said the Treasury and White House websites broke the news.The New York Timesreported: In a significant setback for President Barack Obama's signature domestic initiative, the administration on Tuesday abruptly announced a one-year delay, until 2015, in his health care law's mandate that larger employers provide coverage for their workers or pay penalties. The decision postpones the effective date beyond next year's midterm elections. Employer groups welcomed the news of the concession, which followed complaints from businesses and was posted late in the day on the White House and Treasury websites while the president was flying home from Africa. TheWashington Posts Wonkblogsaid: The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday. We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively, Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesdayblog post. In a July 3, 2013,news story, Bloomberg News described the White House website announcement: Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, said in a blog post announcing the move that the administration decided on the delay so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers a chance to adjust their health-care coverage. Some months later, it looks to us like the Treasury announced the change shortly before the White House did. Jarrettspostis time-stamped 6 p.m. Eastern; the Treasury blog entry does not have a time stamp. But the earliest news accounts we saw solely cited the Treasury post: the Washington Post news blog entry, stamped 5:51 p.m., a Business Insidernews storystamped 5:41 p.m., and a Huffington Postitemstamped 5:50 p.m. Eastern. With the announcements, the government put in motion one-year delays for businesses to report certain information to the IRS and related penalties. The Obamacare law, approved in 2010, essentially requires affected employers and other health coverage providers to report whether their insurance plans meet the laws minimum coverage standards and whether employees are enrolled in them. There were more notification steps: A July 9, 2013, IRSnoticeformalized the change, and Treasury and the IRSpublishedproposed versions of the rules for comment Sept. 9, 2013, in the Federal Register. When we called in January 2014, IRS spokesman Eric Smith told us by phone that the final rules had not yet been issued. Debate has swirled over whether the administration had the authority to unilaterally make this change. Rushton emailed us a link to a July 8, 2013,blog postby the libertarian Cato Institute saying the Affordable Care Act gives Treasury the authority to collect penalties, not to waive them or the reporting requirements. In contrast, a Treasury officialtolda House subcommittee on July 17, 2013, that the departmentgenerally may delay effective dates in some circumstances -- such as easing the transition to new requirements -- because of a lawstatingthe IRS can prescribe all needful rules and regulations to enforce relevant laws. So: The news was announced on two government blogs. And was the originator a mid-level bureaucrat? John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that studies the federal workforce, told us by email, The assistant secretary for tax policy is far from a mid-level Department of Treasury employee. Of the approximately 2.1 million civilian employees in the executive branch of government (not counting the Postal Service), Mr. Mazur is one of only 1,217 Senate-confirmed, political employees in government paid at executive-level IV, which in 2013 was $155,500 a year. On the other hand, a University of North Carolina constitutional law professor who wrote abookon federal appointments told us by email, He could be described as mid-level but, because he is Senate-confirmed, not a bureaucrat. Under the Constitution, officials requiring Senate confirmation are thought of as officers of the U.S.  a term, Michael Gerhardt said, that has been defined by the Supreme Court as someone who wields some substantial policymaking authority. A bureaucrat sounds as if it is someone who does not have much authority or discretion, he said. Gerhardt said mid-level typically means ranking somewhere within the middle of the hierarchy of the department. It is not unusual for Senate-confirmable officials to be in such posts. Our ruling Cruz said that Obama unilaterally announced he was delaying the employer mandate through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury. The announcement was also made on a White House blog, and mid-level bureaucrat isnt necessarily accurate. We rate his statement as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Correction, 4:10 p.m. Jan. 21, 2014:We revised this story, which originally overstated the salary of executive-level IV government employees. This correction did not affect our rating of the claim. Following the death of Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Sept. 29, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he would replace her with long-time political operative Laphonza Butler. At the time of his announcement, Butler was president of Emily's List, a political action committee (PAC) aimed at electing pro-choice female, Democratic candidates to office. death announced  president Active in Democratic politics for years, she was a senior adviser to Kamala Harris' 2020 presidential primary campaign and a partner at the firm SCRB Strategies, a well-known political and business consulting group that handled Harris' campaign, Newsom's fight against recall efforts, and several other high-profile Democratic causes. Prior to her consulting work, she was the president of the largest labor union in California  a healthcare and homecare workers union  Service Employees International Union (SEIU)Local 2015. fight against president With this background, claimswent viral after Newsom's announcement that Butler had advised Uber during its fight against labor protections for drivers and had worked on political issues for the vacation rental company Airbnb: claims  (Twitter) Both assertions are factual. As journalist Lee Fang reported, Uber paid SCRB at least $183,000 in the time period in which Butler worked for the firm, which is now named Bearclaw Strategies. Back in 2019, Bloomberg labor reporter Josh Eidelson reported on Butler's work for Uber, specifically writing: reported reported One asset for Uber is Laphonza Butler. She was president of one of the SEIU's largest local unions until last year and is now a partner at SCRB Strategies, a California-based business and political consulting firm. There, Butler has advised and represented Uber in its dealings with organized labor on employment issues and also serves as an adviser to the presidential campaign of Kamala Harris, the Democratic senator from California. An Uber spokesman said Butler brings a valuable perspective to the company's efforts to improve work for drivers, and a spokesman for Harris declined to comment. Butler and her firm didn't respond to requests for comment. It is also public knowledge that Butler left SCRB strategies to work in the policy arm of Airbnb in September of 2020, taking the title "North American Policy Director." As reported by Politico in 2020: reported Laphonza Butler, a partner at a leading California political consulting firm that has helped guide the campaigns of Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown, is leaving to join the vacation rental company Airbnb, she confirmed to POLITICO. In that role, she advocated policy positions favorable to Airbnb to the U.S. Congress. She was the author, for example, of a letter to congressional leaders advocating Airbnb's "strong support for the necessary federal funding to implement sustainable, long-term policy solutions for broadband deployment throughout our country in order to provide more opportunity in every city, state and territory of the United States. a letter Because both Uber and Airbnb have publicly confirmed that Butler worked with them, and in the case of the latter was directly employed by the company, we rate the claim as  Airbnb Letter on Rural Broadband 8 Jun 2021. 8 June 2021, https://news.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/06/Airbnb-letter-on-Rural-Broadband-8-Jun-2021.pdf. Fang, Lee. Governor Newsom Selects Political Operative Laphonza Butler to Replace Sen. Feinstein. https://www.leefang.com/p/governor-newsom-selects-political. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Key Kamala Harris Political Consultant Heads to Top Airbnb Post." POLITICO, 4 Sept. 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/kamala-harris-political-consultant-airbnb-409154. "Leadership." EMILYs List, https://emilyslist.org/our-leadership/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Marinucci, Carla. "Here's the Political Team Newsom Has Assembled to Fight the Recall." POLITICO, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.politico.com/states/story/2021/03/17/heres-the-political-team-newsom-has-assembled-to-fight-the-recall-1368535. "Teamsters Union Splits From Uber and Lyft on California Worker Rights Law." Bloomberg.Com, 25 July 2019. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/union-splits-from-uber-and-lyft-on-california-worker-rights-law. In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013: testified Martin arrived at the jail in February 2013 at the age of 19. She soon learned she was pregnant. She testified she could not control her activities or movements in jail; the guards did. Thicklen raped Martin in jail. He had sexual contact with her three times while she was pregnant, including vaginal intercourse, and two times after delivery. [Thicklen] told her he was in gray and she was in blue, and his co-workers would believe him and not her. She understood him to mean "he's in authority and ... he has power over me." She understood him to mean his co-workers would believe anything he said; he could falsely say she tried to grab or hit him, or tried to take his taser or gun, and she would be punished. She testified, "I believed everything he said.... I knew that his authority over me would trump anything that I said." Martin testified that during each sexual assault, Thicklen was in uniform, armed, and on duty working for County. All five assaults occurred in jail. Every time, he had to use his keys, power, and authority. He told her he would be fired if people found out. He took steps to hide the assaults. For example, he assaulted her off camera. Finally, on December 3, 2013, she reported the sexual assaults when she was concerned he possibly gave her a disease which spread to her child. An investigation began that day. She was transferred the next day. Thicklen was dismissed and prosecuted. This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had "reversed the lower court's decision to award" money to the victim: Martin v. Milwaukee County   As is often the case, the meme presented a simplified version of facts that could be considered misleading. Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not "overturn" the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen's actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone  and not the county  was liable for paying those damages: scope of his employment Here, we may take it as granted that the sexual assaults occurred during the authorized time and space limits of Thicklen's employment (although there may be some question about whether Thicklen was actually authorized to be in the particular locations of the sexual assaults at the times he perpetrated them). But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his employment ... Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County's training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff's Office's mission. Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would "belong to" and "benefit" only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee's being "at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer" is a sine qua non of scope. Olson Martin presented no evidence at trial that the sexual abuse was similar in kind to work Thicklen was employed to perform. This case is distinguishable from cases involving excessive force by police officers. Some force, even deadly force, is sometimes permissible for police officers. But the rapes in this case were not part of a spectrum of conduct that shades into permissible zones. Inmate rape by a guard usually involves no gray areas. Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million  a fact the panel recognized: indemnified As an aside, we note our conclusion is consistent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's understanding of the public policy behind [the state's indemnification statute]. Wisconsin courts have determined that the purpose of the statutory indemnification is to enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of having to pay out of pocket for such performance. Indemnification here would not further this purpose. We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But [the law] does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs. Critics of Barrett's have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion: Cox v. Evansville Police Department Two on-duty police officers  one in Fort Wayne and one in Evansville  sexually assaulted women, who then brought civil actions against the officers city employers. We address two theories of employer liability: (1) the scope-of-employment rule, traditionally called respondeat superior, and (2) the rules common-carrier exception, which imposes a more stringent standard of care on certain enterprises. We hold that the cities may be liable under the scope-of-employment rule and that the exception does not apply. Resounding in our decision today is the maxim that great power comes with great responsibility. Cities are endowed with the coercive power of the state, and they confer that power on their police officers. Those officers, in turn, wield it to carry out employment duties  duties that may include physically controlling and forcibly touching others without consent. For this reason, when an officer carrying out employment duties physically controls someone and then abuses employer-conferred power to sexually assault that person, the city does not, under respondeat superior, escape liability as a matter of law for the sexual assault. Investing officers with considerable and intimidating powers comes with an inherent risk of abuse. When that abuse is a tortious act arising naturally or predictably from the police officers employment activities, it falls within the scope of employment for which the city is liable. Thus, if an on-duty police officer commits a sexual assault by misusing official authority, the sexual assault is within the scope of employment if the employment context naturally or predictably gave rise to that abuse of official authority. Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court's ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer: reversed ruling Darryl Christensen, a former Polk County jailer, was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting five female inmates hundreds of times over a three-year period. Two of his victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County over the assaults in federal court. The complaint claimed the county sheriffs department was indifferent to the risk of assault because it allowed one male officer with the ability to prevent the entrance of other jailers to supervise female inmates in areas without cameras. The county also deliberately chose not to accept state training materials regarding sexual assault in jails. A jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, of which the county was responsible for paying $4 million. Given that Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his conduct, this figure is the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive. But in June [2019], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling against the county, holding that it could not be held accountable for the actions of a rogue guard who knew that he was violating jail policy, his training and the law. In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision  with Barrett joining the majority  the court vacated the three-judge panel's opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter's abuse of female inmates: vacated Darryl Christensens long-term abuse of J.K.J. and M.J.J. more than justified the jurys verdict against him. And the jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensens horrific acts but rather the countys own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted  a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J., U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote for the full courts majority. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all, Scudder said. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Michael Kanne, Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who authored the original opinion, wrote a blistering 62-page dissent, and was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer. Under the majority opinion, a single subordinate employee may secretly override municipal policy and create a new policy under which that public employer is accountable. That is vicarious liability, a collapse into respondeat superior against which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned for 60 years, Brennan said. Diedrich, John.  "Woman Describes Rapes by Milwaukee County Jail Guard and Giving Birth While Shackled."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  5 June 2017. Diedrich, John.  "Jury Awards $6.7M to Inmate Raped by Guard in Milwaukee County Jail, Shackled During Childbirth."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  7 June 2017. Bailey, Lorraine.  "Full Seventh Circuit Finds Wisconsin County Liable in Prison Rape Case."
  Courthouse News Service.  15 May 2020. Bailey, Lorraine.  "Full Seventh Circuit Hears Debate Over Municipal Liability in Prison Rape."
  Courthouse News Service.  5 December 2019. Amid national debates about income inequality and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, one talking point is frequently highlighted in online memes and by political figures such as Bernie Sanders is that online retailing giant Amazon.com, despite taking in $5.6 billion in profit in 2017, paid no federal corporate income taxes for that year: Bernie Sanders   (With respect to the claim about Amazon employees on welfare, see our fact check on that topic here.) here In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazons tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars): SEC filing   Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazons reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks:   The third negative item in the SEC filing, $789 million in reduced tax burden as a result of the 2017 Tax Act, will be applied to future tax years, according to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. report SEC filings do not require a company to list the specific credits they utilize, but there are several avenues Amazon would likely have pursued. Annette Nellen, a professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said that Amazons write-offs likely include credits for research and development, domestic production, and equipment depreciation. And according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon receives myriad tax incentives from state and local governments as well: said report The expansion of Amazons physical distribution network has coincided with a strategic business plan of negotiating millions in tax abatements, credits, exemptions, and infrastructure assistance from state and local governments in the name of regional economic development. By the end of 2016, Amazon had likely received over $1 billion in state and local subsidies for its facilities, which would include not only fulfillment centers but sortation centers that only sort packages, mailing centers, and other facilities. Publicly-traded corporations can list the stock options they grant to employees as a business cost in their accounting, and if an option-receiving employee makes over $1 million a year in salary, the profits from the sale of those stocks can be then counted as a federal income tax deduction for the corporation (primarily due to a Clinton-era compromise over how to cap executive pay). Stock options allow an employee to purchase stock in their employers company at a set price, regardless of its current market value: list Options give executives and investors the right to buy shares of a company at a later date and at specific prices. For example, if a chief executive joins a media company when its stock is trading at $55 a share, but years later, the share price has skyrocketed to $100, that chief executive can still buy the shares at $55, pocketing the massive difference. In the cases of their highest paid employees, Amazon and other companies are able to deduct the massive difference employees make when they sell that stock at a profit. According to the Center for Tax Justice, because companies typically low-ball the estimated values, they usually end up with much bigger tax write-offs than the amounts they deduct as a 'cost' in computing the profits they report to shareholders. The $917 million in stock-based compensation listed in Amazon's SEC filing likely stems from their top employees' cashing in on their stock options for a large profit. deduct While it is impossible to know the exact amount of money Amazon did or did not pay to the federal government in 2017, their own accounting suggests that they expected their federal corporate income tax burden to be negative that year.  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Amazon.com Inc. Form 10-K"
  2 February 2018.
 Gardner, Mathew.  "Amazon Inc. Paid Zero in Federal Taxes in 2017, Gets $789 Million Windfall from New Tax Law."
  Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.  13 February 2018.
 Tobias, Manuela.  "Bernie Sanders Says Amazon Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2017. He's Right."
  Politifact.  3 May 2018. 
 Jones, Janell and Ben Zipperer.  "Unfulfilled Promises."
  Economic Policy Institute.  1 February 2018. 
 Gunjan, Banerji.  "Potential Loser in Tax Overhaul: Executive Stock Options."
  The Wall Street Journal.  19 December 2017.
 Citizens for Tax Justice.  Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years."
  9 June 2016.