Was a bill passed by Pelosi that allowed her husband to profit millions from selling USPS property?
In late August 2020, readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed falsely that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had rigged legislation to help her husband benefit financially from selling off property belonging to the U.S. Postal Service.   The meme's text reads: This is Paul Pelosi (aka, Nancys Husband). He owns Financial Leasing Services LLC, a San Francisco based Real Estate and Venture Capitalist Firm. His net worth is 120 million. Why is this important? His wife sits on the House Appropriations committee. This committee appropriates funds to the United States Postal Service ( and others). Why is this important? Easy. She passed a bill to sell off 9 billion dollars ( yes 9 BILLION WITH a [smile emoji] worth of FEDERALLY OWNED POST OFFICE PROPERTY AND AWARDED THE THE CONTRACT TO, none other, Financial Leasing Services LLC. Her husbands firm. Why is this important? The commissions rate was set at 9%. That is almost a 1 BILLION dollar contract. If thats not enough, lets look at the new stimulus package. Nancy wants 25 billion in the stimulus package for the postal service where only 1.25 billion goes to making sure voting ballots are legit. The other 23.5 billion is going to upgrading the facilities so they are more attractive to potential buyers for her husbands firm. Corrupt to the core. It's true that Speaker Pelosi's husband Paul Pelosi owns and operates Financial Leasing Services, a San Francisco-based investment company. Financial disclosures in 2018, the most recent available, show Speaker Pelosi's estimated net worth to be $114 million. owns estimated But Speaker Pelosi doesn't sit on the House Appropriations Committee. Her spokesman Drew Hammill told us by email she hasn't been on the committee since 2002. Furthermore, we found no evidence that a bill to sell off $9 billion-worth of federally-owned U.S. Postal Service property exists. doesn't sit It's true that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would, if signed into law, provide $25 billion to shore up the Postal Service and rectify delays in mail delivery service, but it doesn't allocate $1.25 billion toward "making sure voting ballots are legit." The funding was originally on the table during negotiations over a coronavirus stimulus package, but those negotiations broke down. Whether the stand-alone Postal Service funding bill will be signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump seems unlikely. bill originally unlikely The meme seems to be a rehash of a similar one that dates back to 2013  except in that case the subject of the claim was Richard Blum, the husband of U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., who like Pelosi hails from San Francisco. similar one Mikkelson, David.  "Did Dianne Feinstein Get Her Husbands Company a USPS Contract?"   Snopes. 23 April 2013. Rayome, Alison DeNisco.  "What the New USPS Bill Means for the Next Stimulus Package."   CNET.  24 August 2020. Pramuk, Jacob.  "House Passes Bill to Put $25 Billion Into USPS and Reverse Changes Amid Uproar."   CNBC.  22 August 2020. Henney, Megan.  "How Much Money is Nancy Pelosi Worth?"   Yahoo! News.  17 July 2020. Wildermuth, John.  "Pelosi's Husband Prefers a Low Profile."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 January 2007.
The Lone Star state is home to its very own state-regulated power grid known as the Texas Interconnection. The question of whether Texas produces its own power is one that the Snopes team has seen time and again. We often see this trend during times of power crisis, as was the case in 2021, when the states power grid failed, or when energy politics and prices are making the headlines. This was the case in June 2022 when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican representing Texas, tweeted that the impact of President Biden being beholden to the Green New Deal radicals in his party has electricity costs through the roof in Texas. failed June 2022 Green New Deal  Yes, it is true that Texas has its own power grid. The Texas Interconnection (TIS) is one of five alternating current (AC) power grids known in north America as interconnections, according to the U.S. Office of Electricity. TIS spans most of the state and covers all of the electric utilities maintained under the system, each of which is electrically tied together and operates at a synchronized frequency of a 60-hertz average during normal system conditions. U.S. Office of Electricity  Public Domain Texas ownership over its power grid is not necessarily for technical reasons, but more for political ones, reported the Texas Tribune in 2011: namely, to avoid the feds. Power grids that cross state lines are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, which is responsible for the national energy program, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the sale and transmission of electricity in interstate commerce. reported But because TIS does not cross state lines, the system can avoid regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is instead managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Some 26 million Texans and 90% of the electrical load rely on over 52,700 miles of transmission lines contained within the TIS. As a nonprofit, ERCOT is subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. ERCOT 90% 52,700 miles Public Utility Commission of Texas Its no secret that Texas is rich in energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and nearly twice as much as Florida, which comes in at second place. Energy rates are typically determined by a combination of fuel costs, power plant availability, variations in demand, and availability of generation sources, notes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This cost varies from minute to minute, and in hot climates like Texas, prices are highest in the summer when total demand for air conditioning increases. reports U.S. Energy Information Administration In the Lone Star State, those prices are set by ERCOT. To understand the history of ERCOT, we should also take a quick look back at the U.S. power grid through the 20th century. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which gave the Federal Power Commission the power to oversee interstate electricity sales. But Texas wanted to remain out of federal oversight, particularly as its grid did not cross state lines. signed The establishment of TIS can trace its history back to World War II, when 10 independent power grids across the state connected to send excess power to the coast for manufacturing, according to ERCOT. Similarly, utility companies across the nation began to tie themselves together to be more productive, organized, and responsive both in the event of an emergency and to more efficiently manufacture and export goods to troops overseas. ERCOT tie themselves together Following a blackout on Nov. 9, 1965, when 30 million people in the Northeastern U.S. lost power, legislators created the National Electric Reliability Council, now known as the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Five years later, ERCOT was founded to manage the Texas grid in accordance with national standards but still out of the way of federal fingers. (For more ERCOT history, see this explainer published by NBC Austin affiliate KXAN.) founded this explainer We should also note that the Texas power supply is neither totally independent nor does it cover the entire state. El Paso is on its own grid, as are parts of northeastern and southeastern Texas. In 2011 following rolling blackouts, Texas also imported some power from Mexico, as well as two ties to the Eastern U.S. grid.) imported Sources Archive.Ph. https://archive.ph/oiee1. Accessed 7 June 2022. Cohn, Julie. When the Grid Was the Grid: The History of North Americas Brief Coast-to-Coast Interconnected Machine [Scanning Our Past]. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 23243. IEEE Xplore, https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2880938. DG - Distributed Generation. https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/business/dg/dg.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2022. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Electric Reliability Council of Texas. https://www.ercot.com/. Accessed 7 June 2022. ERCOT Organization Backgrounder. https://www.ercot.com/news/mediakit/backgrounder#:~:text=Founded%20in%201970%2C%20ERCOT%20is,grid%20serving%20most%20of%20Texas. Accessed 7 June 2022. EXPLAINER: Why the Power Grid Failed in Texas and Beyond. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/02/17/why-the-power-grid-failed-in-texas-and-beyond/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Galbraith, Kate. Texplainer: Why Does Texas Have Its Own Power Grid? The Texas Tribune, 8 Feb. 2011, https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/. Helman, Christopher. Rolling Blackouts Force Texas To Import Power From Mexico. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/02/03/rolling-blackouts-force-texas-to-import-power-from-mexico/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Learn More About Interconnections. Energy.Gov, https://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/recovery-act-0. Accessed 7 June 2022. OAKTrust Home. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Prices and Factors Affecting Prices - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php#:~:text=Changes%20in%20prices%20generally%20reflect,to%20meet%20the%20increased%20demand. Accessed 7 June 2022. The History of ERCOT: How Texas Became the Only State with Its Own Power Grid. KXAN Austin, 24 Feb. 2021, https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/the-history-of-ercot-how-texas-became-the-only-state-with-its-own-power-grid/. On March 5, 2021, the hashtag #RIPELON started trending on social media as users shared images that supposedly showed news stories reporting that Tesla founder Elon Musk had died in a Tesla factory battery explosion: supposedly showed news stories   In addition to the fake Fox News story shown above, users created several other images that supposedly showed news headlines about Musk's death.    These are not genuine news stories. Musk did not die in a factory explosion in March 2021. While these images appear to show headlines from websites such as Fox News, these are not genuine news articles but fake headlines that were never actually published by credible news sites. The latest article about Musk on Fox News, for example, reports on a successful SpaceX Falcon 9 launch, not Musk's death.  reports We are not exactly sure why people started to spread a death hoax about Musk. Some have speculated that it may have been an attempt to manipulate the stock market. One version of this hoax, for instance, was dressed up as an official announcement from Tesla.   But this is not a genuine statement from Tesla.  Musk, the CEO of companies such as Tesla and SpaceX, is one of the richest people in the world. If he truly did die in a factory explosion, news about Musk's death would dominate on just about every news site. Yet we've not seen any credible reports about his death.  Furthermore, no official statements have been released by Tesla, SpaceX, or on Musk's social media accounts.  There is no truth to the reports that Musk died in a Tesla factory explosion. While these images appear to show headlines from websites such as Fox News, these are not genuine news articles. From single-payer health care to free college tuition for all, Bernie Sanders policy proposals have been both dismissed and lauded as radical. But when it comes to reparations for slavery, some fault the Vermont senator and presidential candidate for holding a more conventional view. Sanders opposition to reparations has been the subject of some controversy after Ta-Nehisi Coates called him out inThe Atlantic,writing, Unfortunately, Sanderss radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations  job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education  is well within theOverton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. Meet the Presshost Chuck Todd followed up with Sanders about Coates columnJan. 24, asking, Why aren't you for reparations because of slavery for African-Americans when you're calling for economic justice on so many other levels? Why do you stop short on that issue? Well, for the same reason that Barack Obama has and the same reason, I believe, that Hillary Clinton has, Sanders responded. And that is, it is absolutely wrong and unacceptable that we have so much poverty in this country and it is even worse in the African-American community. Todd chided Sanders for not answering the question, but Sanders again deflected that it was for the same reasons as Obama and Clinton. Is it true that his position against reparations is the same as Clinton and Obamas views? Sanders is right that Obamas opposition echoes his own. (Coatescallsthis the conventional Democratic philosophy of a rising tide lifts all boats.) Clintons stance is less direct but largely follows the same rationale. Sanders case against reparations First, lets explain why Sanders is opposed to reparations for African-Americans. When first asked about the issue byFusionat the Jan. 11 Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Forum, Sanders stressed the political impracticability and polarizing nature of the proposal, and suggested prioritizing current economic inequality in lieu of compensating for past injustices. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African-American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African-American community, we have a lot of work to do. So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most, and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African-American and Latino. OnMeet the Press, Sanders pretty much dropped the pragmatism argument (though he pushed back on the notion that his economic proposals are politically impossible) and focused instead on the second part of his rationale about improving economic conditions and schools for minorities. So how does this mirror, if at all, the approach by Obama and Clinton? Obamas opposition In 2007 and 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama voiced his opposition to reparations, arguing that the best way to amend for the past is to focus on the present and future. I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools, Obama said in aJuly 2007 CNN debate. Obama couched his opposition somewhat differently in a 2007NAACP presidential questionnaire. He said that nothing, including reparations, can fully compensate for the stain of slavery before arguing that reparations could lead to negligence on other matters of racial injustices: I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say 'weve paid our debt' and to avoid the much harder work of enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing; the much harder work of making sure that our schools are not separate and unequal; the much harder work of providing job training programs and rehabilitating young men coming out of prison every year; and the much harder work of lifting 37 million Americans of all races out of poverty. These challenges will not go away with reparations. So while I applaud and agree with the underlying sentiment of recognizing the continued legacy of slavery, I would prefer to focus on the issues that will directly address these problems  and building a consensus to do just that. Obama explains he will not pursue reparations because the action could be used as an excuse not to work on other lingering problems for minorities. Here, Obamas comments sound different from Sanders. Sanders and Obama sound more aligned in thesecommentsby Obama from July 2008, which both Obama and the Sanders campaign pointed out: You know, I have said in the past  and I'll repeat again  that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And, you know, I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy. You know, the fact is, is that dealing with some of the  some of the legacy of discrimination is going to cost billions of dollars. And we're not going to be able to have that kind of resource allocation unless all Americans feel that they are invested in making this stuff happen. And so, you know, I'm much more interested in talking about, how do we get every child to learn? How do we get every person health care? How do we make sure that everybody has a job? How do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect? And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college. Obama, as far as we can tell through searching Nexis, has not changed or revisited his stance on reparations since 2008. Clintons position Clintons recent and past comments suggest her ideas for helping the black community are no different from Sanders and Obamas. Clinton didnt directly answer the question about reparations at the Iowa Brown & Black Forum, but she alsosuggestedinvesting in black communities and addressing poverty: I think we should start studying what investments we need to make in communities to help individuals and families and communities move forward. And I am absolutely committed to that. There are some good ideas out there. Theres an idea in the Congressional Black Caucus about really targeting federal dollars to communities that have had either disinvestment or no investment, and have had years of being below the poverty level. Thats the kind of thing Id like us to focus on and really help lift people up. In October 2015, she provided a similar response when asked by the hosts of theBuzzFeedpodcast Another Round: Ill tell you what, I think we need to make many more investments in everything from pre-school education to affordable housing, thats my form of trying to give people the chance to be empowered, to make the most out of their God-given potential. As Fusionpointed out, this was largely Clintons answer in 2000 as well. When she was asked about reparations during her Senate campaign, shesaidAfrican-Americans deserve an apology for slavery before pivoting to economic conditions. But I think that the people I know and the people I work with want us to stay focused on the future, keep our economy going, keep providing good public education, quality affordable health care  do the things that will enable people to have the best futures for themselves, and thats what Im committed to doing. Our ruling Sanders said he opposes reparations for the same reason that Barack Obama has and the same reason, I believe, that Hillary Clinton has. The reason, he said, is the need to focus instead on addressing current economic problems in the black community by improving education, providing jobs and addressing poverty. That is basically what Obama and Clinton has suggested in lieu of reparations. Its worth noting that Sanders previously suggested that reparations were politically impractical and divisive. Obama and Clinton have not made comments to this effect. In 2007, Obama said reparations could be used an excuse not to do more for African-Americans. We rate Sanders' claim Mostly True. A few days before she hit the stage in front of a national audience at the Republican National Convention, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte addressed a far smaller crowd in Merrimack, N.H.Despite the difference in venue, the New Hampshire Republican offered a similar message.During the town hall meeting, Ayotte, a Nashua native and freshman senator, took aim at President Obama and the growing debt under his administration. While she didnt specifically blame the president for the debt, she used the speech to blast Obama for increased spending and stifling business.Under President Bush in eight years, we added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Ayotte told the crowd Thursday, August 23, 2012, at Merrimack High School. Under President Obama, we've added $5.3 trillion ... in the 3 1/2 years he's been in office.The numbers have been used before. Lastweek, PolitiFact gave aMostly Trueratingto a similar claim by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the debt has jumped $5 trillion during Obamas time in office.But, does that mean Ayottes numbers are on target? Lets take a look.The numbers arent hard to track.The U.S. Department of the Treasury tracks the national debt figures on its website,TreasuryDirect.gov.On the site, the treasury department divides the national debt into two main categories, debt held by the government and debt held by the public. But, in her statement, Ayotte is referring to the combined total, or total national debt, according to spokesman Jeff Grappone.According to the federal count, the total debt currently sits around $16 trillion. But, as of August, 23, when Ayotte made the statement, it was closer to $15.98 trillion. That figure is about $5.35 trillion higher than the $10.63 trillion debt Obama inherited when he came into office January 19, 2009.When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion, and by the end of his eight years, it grew to $10.63 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.9 trillion. So, Ayottes numbers look right on target.Still, as is so often the case, the numbers dont tell the whole story, according to analysts.At PolitiFact, we consider not just the factual accuracy of a statement, but also whether credit and blame is fairly attributed.Federal spending records show that both Democrats and Republican share the blame for the increased spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obamas first two years, but Republicans have held the House of Representatives since January 2011.Further, as noted in the prior PolitiFact piece, much of the debt results from policies set under past presidents and lawmakers. So, the blame falls on both parties.Its true. They both contributed, said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institutions Budgeting for National Priorities Project. I'm not too worked up about attributing 27 percent to this and 36 percent to that. But, the fact is that both presidents (Obama and George W. Bush) were irresponsible. Were seeing the impact of that now.Our ruling:Ayottes got her numbers right. According to the treasury departments count, the debt has grown $5.3 trillion since Obama took office in 2009, compared to $4.9 trillion in Bushs eight years.Still, analysts say these figures dont paint a full picture of the root causes of the debt.In her statement, Ayotte doesnt attribute direct credit or blame, but she did use the speech to blast Obama and his policies.We rate her claim Mostly True. In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. Urban Legends Reference Pages: Inboxer Rebellion (DarkProfits)  Claim:  Your credit card has been used to place an order with DarkProfits.com.  .Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.  No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com.DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull.Last updated:  30 January 2004   .Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.  No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com.DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull.Last updated:  30 January 2004 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]  Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.   No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com. joe job DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull. illegal goods Child Porn Last updated:  30 January 2004 In April 2020, a rumor started to circulate that CNN deleted from Google Play an old episode of "Larry King Live" that featured the mother of Tara Reade, the woman who accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault. accused The conspiratorial website Infowars, for instance, published an article titled "CNN Removes 'Larry King' Episode with Biden Accuser's Mother From Google Play Archive" and accused CNN of "running cover" for the Biden campaign.  Infowars CNN did not remove this episode from the Google Play streaming service. This false rumor is entirely based on incorrect assumptions made from looking at a single screenshot posted by Twitter user J.L. Hamilton. The image of the Google Play store (see below) showed a "Larry King Live" episode for Aug. 10 and Aug. 12, 1993, but not Aug. 11. In a tweet that was later deleted, Hamilton accused CNN of "actively colluding with the Biden Campaign to cover up evidence of Biden's sexual assault." screenshot   The above-displayed screenshot is genuine. If you go to the Google Play store, you will not find an episode of "Larry King Live" listed for Aug. 11, 1993. However, the claim that CNN removed the episode quickly falls apart when we take a look at the available information. Google Play Some of the confusion may stem from the fact that Google Play lists shows and episodes on its website that aren't actually available for viewing there. While Google Play lists hundreds of "Larry King Live" episodes, for instance, these episodes are not available to view on the service, but users can add them to their "watch list." A Google spokesperson told us that Google does this to gauge viewer interest. As of this writing, if you click on any episode of "Larry King Live" you will be greeted with the text: "This show is currently unavailable." This, of course, raises the question: Why would CNN remove an episode from a service where it was already unavailable for viewing?  Furthermore, although Google Play provides a list of episodes, they do not provide a description for each individual episode. The store instead provides a brief biography of Larry King and a short summary of the "Larry King Live" show. In other words, even if this episode had been listed, it would have made no mention of Tara Reade, which, again, would give CNN little incentive (if, that is, the unfounded notion that CNN was "running cover" for Biden was accurate) to remove the episode.  Shortly after this rumor went viral, Matt Dornic, head of CNN Communications, took to Twitter to state that "CNN did not remove anything," that the network did not have a distribution deal for "Larry King Live" with Google Play, and that Google did not source its listing through CNN:   The rumor that CNN was "running cover" for the Biden campaign is undercut by the fact that CNN drew attention to this episode during an April 25, 2020 segment. In the accompanying article, CNN wrote: CNN (CNN)Newly surfaced video from 1993 appears to feature the mother of Tara Reade, a woman who accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault, calling into a cable TV show to seek advice around the time of the alleged assault. In a "Larry King Live" segment that aired on August 11, 1993, on CNN, an unnamed woman calls in to the show with her location identified on the screen as San Luis Obispo, California. The show was about the cutthroat nature of Washington, DC, politics and media. "Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington?" she asks. "My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him." It isn't clear exactly how Google populates its list of "Larry King Live" episodes, but the list is not comprehensive. For instance, the first episode of "Larry King Live" aired on CNN back in 1985. The earliest episode listed on Google Play, however, is from 1987 (and features Donald Trump).  1987 We have yet to see any evidence that an Aug. 11, 1993, episode of "Larry King Live" was ever listed on Google Play. Since Google Play's "Larry King Live" catalog is missing several episodes, it's possible that no episode for this date was ever listed on (and therefore never removed from) Google's streaming service.  Lee, MJ.  "Biden's Accuser Says Mother Called Into 'Larry King Live' in 1993 for Advice After Alleged Sexual Assault."
  CNN.  25 April 2020. White, Jamie.  "CNN Removes Larry King' Episode With Biden Accuser's Mother From Google Play Archive."
  Infowars.  26 April 2020. Wulfsohn, Joseph.  "CNN 'Larry King' Episode Featuring Biden Accuser's Mother Disappears From Google Play Catalog."
  Fox News.  26 April 2020. In late January 2016, Facebook users began sharing a post that promiseda $200 coupon for the Wegmanssupermarket chain to users who completed a short series of steps.  In July 2019, social media users began encountering a similar offer for an $80 coupon:  The embedded links in those posts pointed to a URL not associated with Wegmans.Userswho attempted to complete the steps andclaim thecoupon were directed toa page that resembledcontent hosted on Facebook,but its URL didn't matchthe social network's. The landing page was familiar to all who had encountered similar scams in the past:   Wegmans'official Facebook page warned customers about the coupon scam:  A Better Business Bureauarticle provided shoppers tips about avoiding survey and coupon scams operating in that fashion: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. How President-elect Donald Trump will handle his extensive businesses and financial holdings  and the potential conflict of interest that comes with them  when he gets into the Oval Office remains an open question. Trump has said his children will manage his business dealings. Many presidents in the past have put their assets in ablind trust, which is when an independent trustee manages another persons assets without the persons input. But Trump doesnt actually have to do any of this because the financial conflict-of-interest laws dont apply to him as president, said former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is reportedly on the short list for a seat on Trumps cabinet. Well, first of all, you realize that those laws don't apply to the president, right? Giuliani toldCNNs Jake Tapper Nov. 13. So, the president doesn't have to have a blind trust. For some reason, when the law was written, the president was exempt. Giuliani has the law pretty much right. Trump, as president, has no legal obligation to detach himself from his businesses and financial interests. The law at issue isTitle 18 Section 208of the U.S. code. Itsaysfederal executive branch employees cant participate in government matters in which they or their immediate family has a financial interest. Because of this law, some federal employees put their investments in a blind trust. This allows them to sidestep the regulation and participate in a matter that might otherwise pose a conflict of interest. But the president and the vice president, despite being executive branch employees, are exempt. According tothe laws definitions, Title 18 Section 208 does not apply to them, nor does it apply to members of Congress or federal judges. It appears that presidents have mostly escaped the normal web of ethics and conflict-of-interest laws, said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government accountability watchdog. Amey added that presidents are allowed to accept gifts in many cases, too. Its been this way since at least 1974, when theJustice Department issued a lettersaying Title 18 Section 208 did not apply to the president. Congress expressly codified the exemptions in 1989. In the 1974 letter, the Justice Department said the legislative history of this conflict-of-interest provision indicated that it was never intended to apply to the president. Additionally, the Justice Department said placing conflict-of-interest laws on the president could constrain him in a potentially unconstitutional manner, though it did not give specific examples. As the head of the executive branch, the president may not be able to  and arguably under the Constitution it might not be possible to require the president to  recuse from government decisions, said Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School. While Title 18 Section 208 is the primary conflict-of-interest provision, there are other relevant rules, including a couple that dont exempt the president. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will have to disclose their finances, which is required of all high-level federal employees, Briffault said. But the disclosures are not as detailed as federal tax returns, which Trump has not released. Then theres the Constitutions Emoluments Clause, which bans U.S. government employees from accepting presents or compensation from foreign governments, noted Kathleen Clark, an expert on legal ethics and a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. The Trump Organization has numerous foreign ties, includingseveral overseasreal estate deals with possible foreign government connections.In 2012, for example, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for Trump Towers Mall in Istanbul. If any of Trumps business arrangements involve the receipt of payments from foreign governments, I believe that he, or his entities from which he receives money, would have to forgo those payments, or he would have to detach from those entities, Clark said. But it's not fully clear that presidents are bound by the Emoluments Clause, and no court has weighed into answer this question. The way the clause is constructred   that it doesn't specify the president, unlike other provisions in the Constitution, for example  and the fact that President George Washington himself took gifts from the French government without asking Congress for permission, together make a good case that it doesn't apply to presidents, saidSeth Barrett Tillman, a professor at Maynooth University in Ireland who has studied the clause. Our ruling Giuliani said financial conflict-of-interest laws don't apply to the president, right? So, the president doesn't have to have a blind trust. The president is, in fact, exempt from the primary conflict-of-interest provision in the U.S. code. So presidents do not have any legal obligation to put their financial holdings in a blind trust or to detach themselves from their financial interests in any way. As president, Trump will have to comply with financial disclosure requirements, however, and it's possible he is constrained by a clause in the Constitution regarding income from foreign governments. We rate Giulianis claim True. Update Jan. 12, 2017: We have updated this story to add more information about the Emoluments Clause. Our rating remains unchanged. If you received a text message purportedly from Amazon, chances are you are one of many and it is a scam. Over March and April 2021, many Snopes readers told us they received messages on their phones claiming they had won an AirPod or another device in a raffle. One of our editors also received the message, which said: Amazon: Congratulations Bond, you came second in this weeks Amazon pods raffle! Follow this link to [...]   She did not follow that link, however, because this appeared right away to be a scam. Indeed, the link did not connect to an official Amazon webpage. According to Amazon, all of its web pages normally follow the same format, ending in amazon.com, for example: pay.amazon.com or aws.amazon.com. Any link that is an IP address or a random string of numbers should be automatically suspicious. Amazon The Better Business Bureau (BBB) alerted users to this scam back in March. It warned that if you get a text message from a range of unknown numbers and with a suspicious link for collecting your item: alerted users Dont click! The text message is not from Amazon and it is the latest in a long list of impersonation scams that have been happening since the start of the pandemic, often using Amazons brand. The bogus raffle and suspicious link are part of a con used to trick people into visiting a phishing website, where they unwittingly share account credentials as well as personal and financial information with fraudsters. According to Amazon, any customer who receives a questionable email, text or call from a person impersonating Amazon or an Amazon employee should report them to Amazon customer service. Amazon investigates these complaints and will take action, if warranted. You can submit suspicious information to stop-spoofing@amazon.com. Amazon also offers a page to help identify if an email, text or phone call is really from Amazon. BBB also included a screenshot of a message similar to the one received by our editor, except the recipient was told that they came third in the raffle. When our editor reported the number that texted her to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it recommended a number of tips to block spam messages. The tips can be read here.  Federal Trade Commission (FTC) here Given that the link to collecting the so-called prize does not direct us to an official Amazon website, and it could potentially share your private information, we rate this claim a Scam.