No, Sean Connery's Net Worth Didn't Leave Family 'in Tears'
Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ Sean Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure and old age ... according to his death certificate. TMZ obtained Connery's death cert and it shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age and atrial fibrillation ... an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." reporting Following his death, at least one advertiser bought ad space on the social media platform Reddit, or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy. previously reported appeared   The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." first documented Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us
An Iranian president says hesready to resolvethe nations nuclear standoff with the West  what gives? Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich gives at least partial credit to economic pain orchestrated by the United States and international allies. While the United States must still be very cautious, he saidon ABCsThis Week, one of the big lessons here is that economic sanctions do seem to work. Right now Iran is suffering 30 percent inflation, 20 percent unemployment, he told a roundtable including CNNs Newt Gingrich, ABCs Jonathan Karl and PBS Gwen Ifill. I mean this nation is hurting and our economic sanctions, because we've been patient with them, because we have actually rounded up almost every other nation to support us, have had a huge impact. Is Iran suffering such high inflation and unemployment under economic sanctions? Tumbling oil exports Now, economic sanctions are nothing new for Iran, which hasfaced U.S. sanctionssince its 1979 Islamic revolution. But the pressure has been rising. Other nations have joined in sanctions since 2006 in response to Irans efforts to develop a nuclear weapon,according to a report by Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, which provides nonpartisan analysis to Congress. Oil exports, which fund nearly half of Irans government spending, have fallen by about half since 2011, from about 2.5 million barrels a day to about 1.25 million. The drop has been driven, Katzman says, by a European Union embargo and U.S. pressure on Iranian oil customers. Iran also lost access to the international banking system. The combination has caused a sharp drop in the value of Irans currency, the rial, Katzman says. Meanwhile, sanctions helped trigger a recession thats driving up unemployment. Has that meant 30 percent inflation, 20 percent unemployment, as Reich told ABC viewers? Theres not a simple answer. Inflation estimates range from30 percent to 70 percent. Official unemployment statistics, meanwhile, are out of date, and outside experts question their accuracy, anyway. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development dont have up-to-date figures for Iranian unemployment. Still, Reichs in range. Gary Hufbauer, a former U.S. Treasury official and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who has studied sanctions for 30 years, said Reichs numbers seem reasonable. Heres how the Congressional Research Service put it in June: Inflation: 30 percent plus, according to Iran Central Bank in May 2013, but believed to be over 50 percent by outside experts. Unemployment rate: Official rate is 15.3 percent as of the end of 2011, but outside experts believe the rate is higher. Reich pointed us to news articles from theAssociated Pressand energy news siteOilPrice.com which offer some support for his numbers while highlighting the uncertainty. The Associated Press reported in June inflation over 30 percent, though it cited a 14 percent unemployment rate. OilPrices.com noted Sept. 19 that analysts outside the country found that unemployment rate impossible to believe, and quoted an estimate from Mehrdad Emadi, an Iranian-born economic adviser to the European Union, of more than 20 percent. (The OilPrices.com report echoes a Reuters report from thesame day.) So reasonable seems like a fair assessment for Reichs numbers. We should also note theres not universal agreement on the size of sanctions role in all that financial pain, which experts also attribute to Iransfiscal management. Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley with a background in economics, told PolitiFact it just makes sense unemployment and inflation would follow a slash in oil exports. The typical consequence for a nation dependent on exports when those exports are cut is high inflation and high unemployment, he said. Michael Malloy, a professor at the University of the Pacifics McGeorge School of Law who specializes in banking regulation and economic sanctions, told PolitiFact it's likely to be a much more complicated picture. Our ruling Reich told ABC viewers that under economic sanctions, now Iran is suffering 30 percent inflation and 20 percent unemployment. Irans own statistics arent widely trusted and international organizations dont have recent unemployment figures. But those numbers fall within a broad range of expert estimates cited by news reports and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Its worth noting that Irans economic struggle has been exacerbated by its own economic policies and other factors, not just sanctions. Still, theres good evidence theyve had a huge impact, as Reich said. We rate his claim Mostly True. Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. Does the nations economy do better when a Republican or Democrat is in the Oval Office? In her recent campaign stop in Sacramento, Hillary Clinton declared Democrats have the magic touch. It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House, Clinton said on June 5, 2016,speaking at Sacramento City Collegeduring her final push in theCalifornia primary. Its similar to a statement the likely Democratic presidential nominee made on March 21, 2016 in Phoenix, when she said: The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. PolitiFact Arizona checked out that claim andrated it Half True. Heres what they reported: The Clinton family love these comparisons, by the way. In 2015, PolitiFact ruled Mostly True claims from Hillary Clinton a claim that, Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats, and another that, The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton had this statement rated True:Since 1961  our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). The score, however, isnt as good for this particular Clinton claim. Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally, Monday, June 6, 2016, in Lynwood, Calif. Other factors involved Clintons Arizona spokesman, Tim Hogan, pointed us to aJuly 2014 studyon the topic from Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The study concludes that Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947, when the data was first tracked. However, the economists point out that there are other factors, such as better oil prices and international conditions, that could be driving these better numbers for Democratic presidents. In short, Democrats occupying the Oval Office tend to have a little better luck. Experts we spoke with largely held the same views. Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the statistics, from GDP to the unemployment rate, are striking, but noted that the president does not have all that control. That doesnt prove what the cause is, Frankel said. Christian Weller, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, did his own math on the GDP data since 1947. He found that the economy, through the last quarter of 2015 and after inflation, grew 3.8 percent under Democrats and 2.4 percent under Republicans. For President Barack Obama, the growth rate in his first term was 1.8 percent. His current growth rate is 2 percent, but thats still higher than his predecessor, George W. Bush. And his second term hasnt ended yet. Based on estimates, Weller said Obama should hit the 2.4 percent Republican average. Still, Ronald Reagans 3.4 percent growth rate is well ahead of the economy right now under Obama. Other than Obama, every Democrat had a faster growth rate, even (Jimmy) Carter had a slightly higher growth rate than Reagan, Weller said. This is one of the safest talking points for a Democratic contender. However, the asterisks bother Arizona State University presidential historian Brooks Simpson. Secretary Clinton is not exactly telling the whole truth, Simpson said. Simpson referenced Bill Clintons administration, noting that he benefited from some of the economic policies of his predecessor, Republican George H.W. Bush. A 2011 report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation notes that the economy was already in its 22nd month of expansion when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. We asked the Clinton campaign for a response. A spokesman pointed PolitiFact California to previous fact checks on the topic, includingPolitiFact Arizonas. The spokesman also pointed to ablog by the Washington Postthat says Clinton was right on the numbers but questions whether Democrats were responsible for the better economic times or just got lucky. Our ruling Hillary Clinton said in Sacramento, It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House. Its similar to her March statement in Phoenix that The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. Yes, Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947. But Clinton's comments require several caveats. The current growth in the economy under Obama is lower than the Republican average. Factors such as oil prices also reflect the higher GDP growth under Democratic presidents. On top of that, comparing one period of time to another or one president to another can be problematic. We agree with PolitiFact Arizonas findings and rate Clinton's claim in Sacramento Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ee86664c-a54d-466d-97d0-e5b488faf87e Conservative social media users circulated an image of a purported Facebook post from 17 October 2017 which they said showed Gold Star widow Myeshia Johnson accusing Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) of exploiting a presidential condolence call over the death of her husband, U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson, for political gain: circulated   The picture allegedly depicts a post from Myeshia Johnson's Facebook page dated "17 October 2017 at 3:27 p.m." saying: I want to set the record straight! I'm getting sick and tired of this so called politician using my husband as a political platform. Even buy [sic] her own words she did not hear all of the conversation she only heard part of it. This is what actually was said. "They know the risk, they know what they sign up for but they still volunteer to put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid" A phone call from President Donald Trump to Johnson is at the center of what has become a public dispute between Johnson and the Trump administration. But the validity of the screenshot is doubtful. While the date of the post corresponds with that of the 17 October 2017 condolence call, the time listed is actually more than an hour before the reported time of President Trump's phone call, which was 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. reported Also, the picture shows a Facebook profile bearing a square profile picture. But the social media site implemented an update in August 2017 that changed the shape of users' profile pictures in the Facebook newsfeed from square to round, as seen in this example from the Snopes.com Facebook page (top left): update shape Facebook   La David Johnson was killed while serving in Niger on 4 October 2017, in what has been described as an ambush by Islamic insurgents. Three other U.S. service members, Staff Sgt. Bryan C. Black, Staff Sgt. Jeremiah W. Johnson, and Staff Sgt. Dustin M. Wright, were also killed in the attack, as were four Nigerien troops. described Rep. Wilson said she was riding with the Army sergeant's widow and members of her family to receive his body when the President called, telling CNN host Don Lemon that night: telling I heard what [Trump] said because the phone was on speaker. Basically he said, "Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt." That's what he said. Wilson accused Trump of being insensitive not only to La David Johnson's family but "to the family of every soldier that has paid the ultimate price for our freedom." The sergeant's mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, has corroborated Wilson's account of the phone call, saying that "President Trump did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband." corroborated President Trump responded by denying what Rep. Wilson had claimed: I didn't say what that congresswoman said. Didn't say it all. She knows it. I had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife who was  sounded like a lovely woman. Did not say what the congresswoman said, and most people aren't too surprised to hear that. On 23 October 2017, Myeshia Johnson told ABC News that Wilson was "100 percent" in her description of the phone call. She said: told The President said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway. And it made me cry cause I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said he couldn't remember my husband's name.  The only way he remembered my husband's name is because he told me he had my husband's report in front of him and that's when he actually said La David. I heard him stumblin' on, trying to remember my husband's name and that's what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country why can't you remember his name. But while President Trump suggested he had proof to support his account of events, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that the call had not been not recorded. Instead, Sanders said, Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly and other White House staff members were near President Trump when he phone Myeshia Johnson and heard what he said. proof told For his part, Kelly called Wilson an "empty barrel" and accused her of taking credit in 2015 for the funding of a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office in Miami, a claim that was debunked by footage of Wilson's remarks that was posted online on 20 October 2017. debunked Despite Sanders' statement that the president's conversation with Myeshia Johnson was not recorded, Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and host of a Facebook broadcast devoted to what his administration calls "real news," asserted on 20 October 2017 that she had read a transcript of the call which confirmed Trump spoke the words in question, albeit with additional context: broadcast asserted [Trump] said, "Your husband went into battle, you know, knowing that he could be injured, knowing that he could be killed, and he still did it because he loved this country, and he did it for the American people." Wilson came under additional criticism after she responded to Kelly's allegations by exclaiming that "You mean to tell me that I've become so important that the White House is following me and my words? This is amazing. That's amazing. I'll have to tell my kids that I'm a rockstar now." exclaiming Two days earlier, Rep. Wilson had issued a statement reading: statement Despite President Trump's suggestion that I have recanted my statement or misstated what he said, I stand firmly by my original account of his conversation with Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson. Moreover, this account has been confirmed by family members who also witnessed Mr. Trump's incredible lack of compassion and sensitivity. The Johnson family and the families of the three other soldiers who tragically lost their lives in the Niger ambush are experiencing what I am certain must feel like an unbearable loss. Rather than engage in a petty war of words with Mr. Trump, it is so much more important to embrace and support the families and honor these fallen heroes. We reached out to Rep. Wilson for comment but have not yet received a response. Sabovic, Sanela et al.  "Trump to Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson: 'He Knew What He Signed Up For.'"
  WPLG-TV.  17 October 2017. Wilson, Frederica S.  "Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson Stands by Account of President Trump's Condolence Call to the Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson."
  18 October 2017. Kelly, Heather.  "Facebook's Adding Text Bubbles and Round Profiles."
  CNN.  15 August 2017. Sabovic, Sanela.  "Remains of US Army Sgt. La David Johnson return to Miami."
  WPLG-TV.  17 October 2017. CNN.  "Congresswoman Describes Trump's Call to Widow."
  17 October 2017. Gearan, Anne and Kristine Phillips.  "Fallen Soldier's Mother: 'Trump Did Disrespect My Son.'"
  The Washington Post.  18 October 2017. de Moraes, Lisa.  "White House: No Recording Of Donald Trumps Phone Call to Widow of Soldier Killed in ISIS Ambush."
  Deadline.  18 October 2017. Barszewski, Larry.  "Frederica Wilson 2015 Video Shows White House Chief of Staff John Kelly Got It Wrong."
  The Sun-Sentinel. nbsp; 20 October 2017. Holly, Jessica.  "Congresswoman Reacts to White House Statement on Call to Army's Family."
  WSVN-TV.  19 October 2017. Searcey, Dionnne et al.  "Conflicting Accounts in Niger Ambush Are Subject of Pentagon Investigation."
  The New York Times.  20 October 2017. Slattery, Denis.  "Lara Trump Says She 'Read Exactly What' President Said to Fallen Soldier's Widow Even Though There's No Transcript."
  [New York] Daily News.  20 October 2017. Nestel, M.L.  "'I Was Very Angry' at Trump, Says Myeshia Johnson, Widow of Fallen Soldier."
ABC News.  23 October 2017. Update [23 October 2017]: Updated with statement from Myeshia Johnson interview with ABC News backing up Wilson's account. Editor's note: Fact-checking whether Trump tweeted about 'Dow Joans' and presidents being shot out of a cannon? That's over here. here Between 10 and 11 October 2018, the Dow Jones Industrial Index dropped 1,378 points in value. Along with significant losses in other market indices (such as the S&P 500), this decline prompted sober and informed analysis, but also partisan criticism of President Donald Trump, who has set a precedent of claiming credit for positive stock market trends.  analysis claiming credit Against that background, critics of the president shared what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet from 2012 in which Trump supposedly proclaimed, "If the Dow drops 1,000 points in two days the President should be impeached immediately!" RETWEET AND LIKE TO SPREAD THIS OLD TRUMP TWEET! pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 11, 2018 October 11, 2018 Since the Dow Jones had indeed dropped by more than 1,000 points in two days (the argument went), President Trump, in accordance with his own pronouncement, ought to be removed from office, or even resign. This was advocated with great gusto on Twitter in the aftermath of the October 2018 loss: The Dow has dropped 1,377 points in the last two days. Oh @realDonaldTrump, your self from six years ago would like a word with you. Alternatively, you could save us all a lot of time and money and just resign immediately. pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR  Stephen Schwartz (@AtomicAnalyst) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 Sooo, @realDonaldTrump..... @realDonaldTrump For a 2-day trump slump of minus-1,300 to the Dow, by your "logic" you should be impeached immediately AND thrown in jail! #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD  BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 @realDonaldTrump impeach Trump .. Dow is down 1,300 points https://t.co/31MNdEkePB @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/31MNdEkePB  alex taye (@ChakluTaye) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 But there is no record of Trump having posted such a tweet on 6 November 2012, or on any other date. Since it's conceivable that he published it then deleted it, we can't reach a definitive conclusion as to whether or not it is genuine. However, there are good reasons to doubt its authenticity. no record Firstly, it is strikingly similar to another tweet which was revealed to have been a hoax in February 2018, after another massive loss for the Dow Jones. On that occasion, Shaun Usher -- who runs the popular "Letters of Note" blog -- admitted to having fabricated an "old Trump tweet" from 2015, in which the presidential candidate was supposed to have proclaimed:  hoax loss If the Dow Joans [sic] ever falls more than 1000 "points" in a Single Day the sitting president should be "loaded" into a very big cannon and Shot into the sun at TREMENDOUS SPEED! No excuses!    Secondly, there is no record of the 2012 tweet existing before 11 October 2018. The earliest instance we could find was the purported screenshot posted on that date by Twitter user Travis Allen. Despite searching Twitter and online news archives from 2012 onward, we did not find a single reference to Trump advocating the impeachment of the U.S. president in the event of a significant stock market drop. Twitter Nobody made reference to such a tweet despite almost six years passing -- not even when the Dow Jones dropped 1,175 points on 5 February 2018.  Also, we could find no variances in screenshots of the purported tweet. Every instance shows the same number of retweets and likes, and the same set of thumbnail avatars. Additional screenshots displaying variations in the number of retweets and likes, and/or different avatars, would at least suggest that someone besides Travis Allen had taken note of the tweet and kept a record of it (although that, in itself, would not amount to definitive corroboration).  As it stands, the case for the tweet's authenticity rests entirely on a sole Twitter user (out of hundreds of millions) having taken a screenshot of it between 6 November 2012 and 11 October 2018, before it could have been deleted.  Finally, the person who posted the earliest known instance of the tweet has a history of posting anti-Trump "sharebait," a fact that casts even more reasonable doubt on its authenticity.  Allen's own 11 October tweet implores readers to "retweet and like to spread this old Trump tweet." This effort to garner shares and engagement is a common feature of his Twitter account. In the week leading up to the "Dow Jones" screenshot, Allen published nine tweets that included requests that readers share and like his content. For example:  Remember when Trump said he was going to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it? ??? RT and like if you remember!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 9, 2018 October 9, 2018 Many many people are saying that Brett Kavanaugh is the WORST SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE! Retweet and like if you agree!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018 The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to two leading figures in the movement to end sexual violence as a weapon of war. Remember when #MAGA thought Trump was going to get the Nobel Peace Prize for getting a picture with Kim Jong Un? ??? #MAGA RT if you remember! pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 5, 2018 October 5, 2018   A pattern of posting partisan sharebait does not prove that Allen's "Dow Jones" tweet was fake, but it justifies further skepticism about its authenticity.  We sent Allen a message asking him whether he fabricated the tweet, and, if not, whether he could provide the date on which he captured a screenshot of it, its URL, or an archive link to it. We did not receive a response.  Chang, Sue; Vlastelica, Ryan. "U.S. Stocks Close Lower as Dow Drops Nearly 1,400 Points in 2 Days."
 Marketwatch. 11 October 2018. Rampell, Catherine. "The Stock Market Under Trump vs. Obama."
 The Washington Post. 1 May 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Did Trump Tweet That the President Should Be Shot Out of a Cannon If the Stock Market Tanked?"
 Snopes.com. 5 February 2018. Phipps, Claire; Wearden, Graeme; Fletcher, Nick. "Australian and Asian Stock Markets Slide After Dow Suffers Biggest One-Day Points Fall -- As It Happened."
 The Guardian. 6 February 2018. FACT CHECK: Do crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into slavery?     Claim: Crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into sexual slavery.   MOSTLY  Example: [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] Crown Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning https://t.co/u0fabfCANc https://t.co/u0fabfCANc  Phillip Hernandez (@Flipy602) September 8, 2015 September 8, 2015  Origins: On 8 September 2015, the web site IJ Review published an article with the misleading headline "'Crown' Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning": article For thousands of women across the United States their tattoos are a constant reminder of the men who enslaved them for profit. Sex trafficking in the United States affects countless women, and many are left with the scars and marks of their former pimps. A CNN interview with a victim and survivor of sexual slavery and addiction named Jennifer Kempton helped shed light on these tattoos. The article (and several subsequent republications of it) attributed its claims to a 2 September 2015 CNN piece titled "Sex-trafficking survivors use new ink to reclaim their lives." That report profiled Survivor's Ink, a group devoted to assisting victims of sex trafficking to remove or cover tattooed brands acquired in the course of their victimization: piece [Founder Jennifer] Kempton said the new ink changed the way she looked at herself, but she still had three other brandings. There was one on her neck, one on her back and one right above her groin that said "Property of Salem," a trafficker who played a major role in bringing Kempton into the life she had now left behind. She told a human trafficking advocate about the "property of" tattoo. The advocate contacted a family member who agreed to pay for her to have the rest of her brandings covered. This was the beginning of Survivor's Ink. Kempton wanted other survivors to experience the freedom she had found, so she started a nonprofit organization that pays for trafficking survivors to have their branding tattoos covered by new tattoos of their choosing. Both CNN and IJ Review linked to Survivor's Ink's Facebook page, which contained photo albums illustrating before and after tattoos. Notably, only a single crown was featured among the tattoos depicted, casting the "here's what it means" headline into doubt.  photo albums It's likely that some pimps chose a crown as the brand forcibly inked upon their victims. But nothing in the CNN report suggested that crowns are universal (or even common) among tattoos forced on unwilling sex workers. Moreover, crown tattoos are a popular choice among the inked. We found no evidence that crown tattoos were linked to sex trafficking before 7 September 2015; however, we located a number of proudly-displayed, intentionally-chosen crown tattoo examples: crown tattoos #Blue Crown #Tattoo By Iuri Chmel #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP #Blue #Tattoo #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP  Tattoo Ideas (@tattooideas__) August 24, 2015 August 24, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black-And-Grey Crown and Scepter pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) August 20, 2015 August 20, 2015  Upper back tattoo of a crown by Murat Bilek. Tattoo artist: Murat Bilek#littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w #littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w  Little Tattoos (@little_tattoos) August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown One Love pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3 #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) July 14, 2015 July 14, 2015  Even if a small fraction of the crown tattoos (shared across the internet in body modification galleries) were coerced, the vast majority of folks with a crown tattoo were not victims of sex trafficking; the presence of one is definitely not "disturbing" proof its owner was once enslaved.  Last updated: 8 September 2015 Originally published:  8 September 2015 Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. Claim:   President Obama has limited churches to offering twice-monthly services.  Example: [Collected via Twitter, April 2015] Is this true about Obama? Is he really making people go to church two times a month instead of four times? Wtf  Origins:   On 8 April 2015, the News Examiner web site published an article reporting that President Obama had limited churches to offering twice-monthly services in order to ensure Americans worked harder: article At a press conference today, President Barack Obama announced he would be implementing a new law changing the current monthly 4-Week church services down to 2 times a month. Obama says during these rough economic times it crucial to take drastic measures so Americans can work harder and pray less. These effects are to take place May 1st of this year and analyst expect this move to increase the economy by more than 40%. Americans tend to work hard and pray harder. I'm asking them to make these changes for the good of the country during these hard times. If things don't work out within 6 months we can always switch back to the old way, but for now, lets give this a solid shot and see where it takes us. These are crucial times my friends and we must stick together as a country if we are going to succeed. If you have any questions about President Obama's new 2-week church schedule that will be taking place May 1st a hotline has been set up to answer all your questions at (785) 273-0325. President Obama could not have made any such announcement, as he has no authority to limit church services, and any attempt to do so would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom.  The referenced article was a just another hoax from the News Examiner, a fake news site started by Paul Horner, the former lead writer for the similarly fake National Report web site, after Facebook implemented a crackdown on the posting of hoax articles that virtually destroyed the latter site's reach.   crackdown Previous hoaxes from the same site include the false claim that the world's first head transplant was successfully performed in South Africa in April 2015.  head transplant The "hotline" phone number provided in the article is actually that of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.   Last updated:  14 April 2015 Talk-radio host and former Providence Mayor Vincent A. Buddy Cianci Jr. recently referred to a member of Governor Chafees staff as the guy who still owes $250,000 to the state.Ciancis jab at Michael F. Trainor,  aired on Sept. 1, 2011 on WPROs The Buddy Cianci Show.Because it wasnt the first time that Cianci had made the comment -- and because a bankruptcy judge had discharged most of Trainors debt nearly a year ago -- we thought it was worth looking into.Trainor has built a career in public relations representing some of the states high-profile politicians and corporate players. He was an advisor and spokesman for Lincoln Chafee during Chafees successful 2010 run for governor.But Trainor has had his own public relations problems ever since it became known late last year that he and a business partner from Connecticut defaulted on a $250,000 federal small business loan granted through the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation.According to the EDC and bankruptcy court documents,  heres what happened:The duo and two of their partners started a Rhode Island company, called Genesis Distribution & Marketing, in 2006 to distribute and market retractable window screens and hurricane shutters.Trainor and his partners had already bought a company in Connecticut that distributed and installed hurricane shutters. And they planned to buy three more in the South that made the shutters. In January 2007, the EDC loaned  the business $250,000 through the federally funded Small Business Loan Fund to buy inventory, furniture, fixtures and equipment and hire three employees.But the business was short-lived.Just two months after receiving the EDC loan, the partners fell behind on their payments. In 2008, the company folded.Trainor and his partner from Connecticut, who had pledged their homes as collateral for the loan, talked with representatives from the EDC about a settlement. But the talks broke off in August 2009, when Trainor notified the agency that he was filing for bankruptcy.By then, the housing market had tanked along with the value of Trainors house.The partners had repaid $36,326 of the loan; with interest and late fees, the debt on the loan at the time totaled $250,723.In September 2010, a bankruptcy judge granted Trainors petition for Chapter 7bankruptcy.An explanation of the ruling in the bankruptcy court documents states: The chapter 7 discharge order eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to pay a debt that is discharged.The EDC loan was written off on Nov. 30, 2010. The agency concluded that it couldnt recover any money from its lien on Trainors home because the mortgage balance exceeded the propertys value.In December, 2010, Trainor, who was being considered for a job in the Chafee administration, toldThe Providence Journalthat he had not walked away from his obligations, saying hed like to negotiate a settlement with the EDC.Governor Chafee discussed Trainors situation on Channel 12 Newsmakers in December 2010, saying that there would be an effort made to repay the EDC. [Well] make sure Mike does that, he said.So it certainly sounded then as though Chafee and even Trainor himself believed that Trainor still owed the EDC the money.Chafee hired Trainor as spokesman when he took office in January, a job that paid $129,235.That month, Trainor also repaid the state $20,788.75 in taxes -- which were not  dischargeable in the bankruptcy -- owed on his failed business. In return, the state Division of Taxation removed the lien on his property. Six months later, in July, the bank sold his house at a foreclosure auction. Trainor served seven months as Chafees spokesman before he was transferred, in August, to the Department of Higher Education. His salary has dropped to $88,177. So, does he still owe the $250,000, as Cianci claims?That debt was discharged, Andrew S. Richardson, a lawyer and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Trustee in the Trainor case, said. (He) can no longer be forced to pay the obligation -- nor can the creditor take any steps to try and collect it.In other words, Richardson said, theres no legal obligation that Trainor repay the loan.But other lawyers who specialize in bankruptcy see it differently.Most people understand (bankruptcy) as destroying the debt  but technically the discharge in bankruptcy doesnt destroy the debt at all, Jason Kilborn, a lawyer, law professor and resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute in Virginia said. It does not destroy the obligation from a moral or even a legal obligation. It just prevents the creditors from collecting on that debt.The American Bankruptcy Institutewas founded in 1982 to provide Congress and the public with unbiased analysis of bankruptcy issues.In other words, the debt remains, even though the creditors are forced to write it off as uncollectable.So if the debt remains but Trainor isnt obligated to repay it, does he really owe the state money?We called Cianci and challenged him on his use of the term owes. Trainors bankruptcy discharge, he maintained, doesnt change the fact that Trainor still owes the EDC the $250,000.Maybe it was discharged, he said, but in the mind of the taxpayer who fronted the 250 grand? Yeah, he still owes it.Said Richardson, the trustee: I think it depends on whose point of view youre looking at, the creditor or the debtor.We agree.Practically speaking, the bankruptcy ruling and the fact that the mortgage on the Trainors home exceeded its value made it impossible for the EDC to recoup its money.But even after the debt was discharged in bankruptcy Trainor and Chafee both said theyd make an effort made to repay the EDC.After all, a debt can be owed even if its never collected.For that reason, we rule Ciancis statementMostly True. A photograph supposedly depicting the so-called carpet shark, also known as the tasseled wobbegong, has been shared on social media since at least November 2021. Though there is no evidence of digital editing, it does not genuinely depict a tasseled wobbegong  which is a real species of carpet shark  but rather an entirely different species of fish found along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. real species The Snopes newsroom came across the photograph in July 2022 when it was shared to Reddit's r/interestingasfuck subreddit. That post included a caption that framed the image as an underwater snapshot of the tasseled wobbegonging in the "shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands." That post   But that caption was misleading. The photograph does not show a tasseled wobbegong. Rather, it depicts a goosefish, which is also known as a monkfish or American angler. While we were not able to verify the exact origins of the image in question, we do not doubt that the photograph is authentic, based on similar images showing the goosefish.  A quick reverse-image search showed that the photograph has been circulating on social media in various iterations since at least 2021. quick reverse-image  Tineye Since that time, several social media users pointed out that it was erroneous to call the photographed fish a tasseled wobbegong when it was really a goosefish. several pointed out  Sometimes called a monkfish or American angler, the goosefish (scientific name Lophius americanus) is found in the north and mid-Atlantic. The fish is described by NOAA as having mottled dark brown to olive-green skin on top and whitish skin underneath. Some say the goosefish has a tadpole-like appearance, characterized by a broad head and large mouth. described by NOAA  Goosefish are ambush predators. Though the seafloor-looking fish typically reach lengths of up to 4 feet, they can disappear into their surroundings and sit in camouflage along the ocean floor. The bottom-dwellers use their modified spines like fishing poles to lure prey  small fish including other goosefish  toward their mouths. In addition to fish, goosefish also eat crustaceans, mollusks, seabirds, and diving ducks, notes NOAA.  While the goosefish finds its home waters along the eastern coast of the U.S., the tasseled wobbegong lives in the waters of northern Australia and is a member of the carpet shark family, a predatory species named for its seafloor-dwelling habits.  tasseled wobbegong carpet shark Tasselled Wobbegong. Oceana, https://oceana.org/marine-life/tasselled-wobbegong/. Accessed 11 July 2022.Fisheries, NOAA. Monkfish | NOAA Fisheries. NOAA, 5 May 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/monkfish.