Hillary Clinton reduced her tax bill by giving $1 million to herself through the Clinton Foundation.
An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation   3. Declaring an amount  say $1 million  as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices.  Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving.  2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012.  So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000.  Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator  Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?"
Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy."
Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016.
As President Donald Trump weighed imposing tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, some commentators have warned that this would be a misguided approach. Noah Smith, a columnist for Bloomberg View and a former finance professor, wrote acolumnin which he noted, among other things, that a crucial issue facing metals-producing industries isnt foreign competition  its automation. Tariffs, Smith wrote, wont bring back good jobs at steel and aluminum factories. Since 1990, production of metals in the U.S. has held roughly constant, but the number of people employed in the industry has fallen steadily. Thats due to technological improvements, he wrote: Productivity has improved, even as demand has stayed more or less constant. Mathematically, that means fewer jobs for steel and aluminum workers. Tariffs wont change that equation. If anything, by hurting downstream industries like car and equipment manufacturers, the new import taxes will probably kill more factory jobs than they save. We cant predict what will happen in the future, but we wondered whether Smith is right about the trend lines for production and employment in the American metals-producing sector since 1990. And when we took a closer look, we found that hes on target. We found data for employment in the primary metals-producing sector, which incorporates five subcategories: iron and steel mills, steel product manufacturing from purchased steel, aluminum production and processing, production and processing of metals other than iron and aluminum, and foundries. Employment levels in this sector have declined reasonably steadily since 1990, despite a period of stable employment during the late 1990s, a sharp but temporary fall during the Great Recession, and a modest uptick over the past year or two in which metals employment growth has outpaced that of the overall economy, said Jed Kolko, chief economist at the jobs site Indeed.com. Overall, since 1990, employment has declined by about 42 percent. At the same time, production in primary metals has remained roughly the same since 1990 except for the Great Recession. For most of that period, production has ranged between 90 percent and 110 percent of the benchmark level (the amount produced in 2012): If you put these two statistics together, the overall pattern becomes clear: As production stays roughly the same and as fewer workers make it happen, productivity rises over time. The idea that steel in particular has experienced a productivity revolution due to technology is the same story I have been telling since the early 1990s, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. The basic story is that one person can produce a lot more metal today than he or she could produce a few decades ago. Burtless said he has a brother whos been working in the coke oven of a steel plant since the mid 1970s and who has seen first-hand the dramatic reduction in person-power needed to keep integrated steel mills running at full capacity  as well as improvements in quality. Michael J. Hicks, the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, agreed that Smiths analysis is on target. I would agree that the most likely cause of the productivity gains are technology, though I would interpret technology broadly to include not just machinery but the way that factories organize production, such as internal logistics and the reduction of redundant operations that might be enabled by technology, Hicks said. And J. Bradford Jensen, a professor of international business at Georgetown Universitys McDonough School of Business, added that imports did have something to do with the loss of employment in steel and aluminum, but the more important factor is technological change and productivity growth, he said. Tariffs won't change that, much like relaxing regulations on coal and pollution will not bring back many coal-mining jobs, he said. Smith wrote, Since 1990, production of metals in the U.S. has held roughly constant, but the number of people employed in the industry has fallen steadily. His numbers are solid, and experts agree that automation has done significant harm to employment levels in the metal industry. We rate the statement True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. On 17 July 2016, the web site Newslo reported that Indiana governor Mike Pence, the newly-announced running mate of GOP candidate Donald Trump, had said allowing rape victims to have abortions would lead to women trying to get raped in order to have abortions: reported The Republican war on women continues unabated. The same week that conservatives argued in the Supreme Court that employers should be able to stop their employees from getting contraception outside of the company health plan, Indiana joined the ranks of states like Texas and Florida in passing a draconian law that purports to protect women, while in fact, endangering their health by making safe abortion much harder to get. And Gov. Mike Pence recently signed it. The bill is stuffed with as many asinine restrictions on abortion with an eye towards making abortion as miserable and humiliating an experience as possible, and ideally something women cant get legally at all. ... Pence also tried to offer his opinion on what would have happened had he allowed rape victims to still have abortion. First and foremost, because this is such a sensitive topic, let me just say that I sympathize with rape victims not just in America, but around the world. I can only imagine what it must be like to experience such trauma, he said. However, that does not justify murder, not even that justifies murdering a baby, not in my book. Because what would happen? Wed then have an epidemic of women claiming to have been raped just so they could have an abortion. And that has to be stopped at all cost. Donald Trumps new running mate also said, Basically, if Id have said no on the bill, that would be just like giving out get-pregnant-without-fear cards, because at the end of the day, women could have unprotected sex without worrying about what theyd do in the event of pregnancy. And you know, its not supposed to be like that ... And it gets worse  when you get an abortion, you get several days off of work and whatnot to recover. And there are a lot of crazy people out there. What if women would go out and get raped on purpose just so they could get off work? I mean, Indianas economy is struggling as it is, and having thousands of women absent from their jobs would be horrific for the state, Im telling you. I made the right call and that will be confirmed in the long run, Pence concluded. As with all content on Newslo (and its sister sites Religionlo and Politicalo), the item used a fact-based introduction to lead into counterfactual information. Pence did sign anti-abortion legislation in May 2016 but like all content published by that trio of fake news sites, the article included a "show facts" or "hide facts" button (all content displayed by default in "hide facts" mode): sign fake news  While the facts of the first paragraph were broadly true (as Pence had signed an abortion bill a few months prior), the remainder of the piece was embellished or entirely fabricated. Pence never said that women would attempt to get raped in order to have an abortion, to obtain days off work or for other reasons.  Newslo  Newslo Viagra Biblical hunger tests Antonin Scalia David Bowie On 14 March 2016, a Fox News producer sent a tweet positing that supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump were spotted at a Florida rally wearing armbands not dissimilar to those associated with the Nazis: .@realDonaldTrump supporters sporting armbands in Florida https://t.co/MoJjuXcVOk @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/MoJjuXcVOk  Nick Kalman (@NickKalmanFN) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016  The armband rumor was one of many that invoked Nazi imagery in connection with Trump's campaign (earlier quips suggested Godwin's Law was suspended for the duration of the 2016 election cycle). Nazi armbands(cataloged extensively by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) remain a strong visual reminder of Nazi-era German politics, World War II, and the Holocaust, due in part to their enduring presence in pop culture representations of those events:  Nazi imagery Godwin's Law suspended Nazi armbands extensively   However, it appeared that the initial tweet was sent without much verification as to whether the Trump armbands were legitimate campaign memorabilia sported unironically by dutiful supporters of the GOP presidential hopeful. Not long after the image hit Twitter hard, users began pointing out that the "Trump supporters" looked awfully familiar:  Trump armband guy looks like the "Rubio stole my girlfriend" guy. Maybe everyone wait a min https://t.co/Hx21ucwKO7 pic.twitter.com/7f84UddJLG  Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) March 14, 2016 https://t.co/Hx21ucwKO7 pic.twitter.com/7f84UddJLG March 14, 2016  Political pranksters: Guys in Trump armbands appear to be same guys in Settle for Hillary shirts at her rally. pic.twitter.com/8d0TVTWleJ pic.twitter.com/8d0TVTWleJ  Matt Viser (@mviser) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016 These are the same two guys I saw disrupt a Christie event and Jeb event on separate days in Iowa https://t.co/F2GthTmuq8  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 https://t.co/F2GthTmuq8 March 14, 2016  Check tape from Jeb's caucus day event in Des Moines: These two were sitting in stands behind him & heckled him before security removed them  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016 @BecketAdams @aseitzwald They were also present at Iowa events. Saw them at Christie and Jeb causing commotion as well  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 @BecketAdams @aseitzwald March 14, 2016  The Washington Post noted that the men pictured were "bipartisan pranksters" who had also "hit" rallies for Democratic candidates: noted Today the Internet (briefly) went nuts over this photo, of two men described as Trump supporters, taken by a Fox News producer at a Trump campaign rally. But those guys looked familiar. And not from Trump rally sightings. Very familiar. Very, very familiar. (They're bipartisan pranksters, who've reportedly also hit Clinton and Sanders rallies.) TL;DR summary: Not everything you see on the Internet is real. So, although this photograph may be real and unaltered, the assumptions commonly made about what it depicts are not. The two men seen here are not Trump partisans genuinely donning armbands as a show of support for the candidate. Rather, the pair are well-known in the media for their ongoing interest in disrupting or otherwise "making it weird" at events for candidates from both parties. FACT CHECK Did the Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly release Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.?   Claim: The Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly released Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.   : WHAT'S  Guantanamo detainee Abdul Shalabi was repatriated to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the day on which Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C. WHAT'S   Abdul Shalabi's release was sudden and unexpected, and it occurred under the radar of the news media due to coverage of the Pope's visit. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Rumor has it that while the pope was in DC that POTUS released Abdul Shalabi from Gitmo.   Did Obama really release Abdul Shalabi will everyone was watching the pope in DC? Origins:  Pope Francis' "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" that began on 22 September 2015 marked the pontiff's first visit to the U.S. On 24 September 2015, the web site of former one-term congressman and conservative political commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbait headline of "While the Media Obsessed Over the Pope, Look What Obama Just Did" that asserted: While Pope Francis was in Washington smooching with the president and giving speeches about global warming, income inequality and the evils of capitalism (while being ominously silent about the persecution and slaughter of his Christian brethren around the world), the Obama administration released Abdul Shalabi from the Guantanamo Bay detainment center. That Shalabi was released yesterday as the country was focused on Pope Francis arrival in the United States could well be the administration's most blatant "Look, over theresquirrell!!" [sic] moment ever. The very idea that this man who worked side-by-side with Osama bin Laden can somehow be "rehabilitated" to no longer want to kill infidels, and, be rehabbed by the Muslim government of an Islamic nation  is beyond laughable. What does Obama think hes going to do there now, train to become a valet? Take up needlepoint? Oh, I know, maybe open a bakery and make cakes for gay weddings. The excerpt quoted above suggests that Shalabi's release was unexpected and deliberately coordinated so as to go unnoticed during media coverage of Pope Francis' arrival in Washington D.C. However, Shalabi's release was neither unexpected, nor was it ignored by the media. A widely-reproduced Associated Press article published three months earlier had announced that Shalabi, who had been on a nine-year hunger strike, had been approved for release from Guantanamo by a government review board: article A prisoner who has been on a nine-year hunger strike to protest his confinement at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can now return to his native Saudi Arabia, a government review board said. The Periodic Review Board, which has been re-evaluating dozens of Guantanamo prisoners previously deemed too dangerous to release, said in a statement published on its website that Abdul Rahman Shalabi can be released to take part in a Saudi government rehabilitation program for militants and would be subject to monitoring afterward. Shalabi began a hunger strike in 2005. He and another prisoner, who since has been released, maintained the protest longer than any others held at the base. Court records show Shalabi occasionally consumed food but also dropped to as little as 101 pounds (46 kilograms). His lawyer told the review board in April [2015] that prison officials had fed him with a nasogastric tube daily for nine years. The U.S. now holds 116 men at Guantanamo, including 52 cleared for transfer or release. Similarly, an 8 August 2015 New York Post article reported that Shalabi was due to be released soon (partly to care for his mother): article Take detainee Abdul Shalabi. His lawyers in June pleaded that the former bin Laden bodyguard was sufficiently reformed and wanted only to reunite with his family in Saudi Arabia and take care of his ailing mother. The board subsequently agreed Shalabi was no longer a significant threat to the security of the United States, and rubber-stamped his release  even though the al Qaeda operative conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while plotting the 9/11 attacks from Karachi, Pakistan. Shalabi also was said to have trained at al Qaeda camps to participate in a suicide attack or deployment to the West. The UK newspaper The Guardian also reported on Shalabi's then-pending release on 13 August 2015, and the claim that "the media" ignored Shalabi's release in favor of Papal visit coverage conflicted with the 22 September 2015 publication in the New York Times of an article reporting that: reported Although a six-agency task force decided in 2009 that Mr. Shalabi was too dangerous to release, a parolelike panel called the Periodic Review Board, consisting of representatives from the same six agencies, decided in June [2015] that he could now be safely repatriated to Saudi Arabia. In a statement explaining its reasoning, the board said Mr. Shalabi had terrorist-related activities and connections in the past, but said it was confident that the Saudi governments rehabilitation program and its ability to monitor former detainees would mitigate the risks. The board also cited the fact that Mr. Shalabis nephew, who was repatriated from Guantnamo in President George W. Bushs second term and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program, has apparently lived quietly ever since. Mr. Shalabi appeared before the board at a hearing in April [2015]. He asked that his statements not be made public. But a lawyer helping to represent him, Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, told the board that he just wanted to settle down, get married and have a family of his own, and put the past behind him. The New York Times wasn't the only high-profile U.S. news outlet to cover Shalabi's release, as a 22 September 2015 Reuters piece also announced the imminent transfer of Shalabi to Saudi Arabia. piece As noted above, it was a review board comprising officials from several different military, legal, and intelligence agencies who recommended Shalabi's repatriation to Saudi Arabia, as explained on the Department of Defense Periodic Review Secretariat's web site: explained The Periodic Review Board (PRB) is a body comprised of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that will review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  Articles published three months in advance of Shalabi's repatriation acknowledged that (despite his never having been charged with a crime) he had links to Osama bin Laden al-Qaida and had "not been cleared of wrongdoing": Shalabi, 39, was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo in January 2002. He was never charged with a crime but the government said he had been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and had links to the external operations chief for al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo. The board, which was created by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2011 as part of the effort to close the prison at Guantanamo, did not clear Shalabi of wrongdoing and said it "acknowledges the detainees past terrorist-related activities." So while it's true that Abdul Shalabi was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the formal decision to do so was made well in advance of the Pope's September 2015 visit to the U.S., and news of Shalabi's hearing, review, and release was reported by major news outlets (inside and outside the United States) both before and during the event.  Last updated: 25 September 2015 First published:  25 September 2015 Claim:  Chart shows top 20 raises given to White House staffers in 2010. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] Well here you go folks - outrageous salary increases at the WH.  Go Google and set your search parm to white house top 20 raises and you'll get everything you want to know about this article. What the heck does a Director of African-American Media do to get an 86% increase? Hang out over at Black Entertainment TV or maybe sit around and read Ebony? Remember in November Remember: no Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for two years.  HMMM...17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR HIS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!. NO WONDER WE CAN'T HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE & HE WANTS TO NOW RAISE OUR TAXES ALSO. SOUNDS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IS REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE VOTERS, DOESN'T IT ????    Origins:  This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not."   graphic article The chart is accurate as far as it goes, but by itself it does not include the context that 19 of the 21 staffers listed also received new job titles, so the pay increases were not straight raises but came in tandem with promotions and/or increased job responsibilities.  The Gawker article also noted that, because the number of paid staffers decreased from 466 in 2010 to 451 in 2011, the White House's salary budget actually dropped from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, and the average salary for staffers also dropped from $82,721 to $81,765 (about 65% above the median household income). Last updated:  11 August 2011    Fader, Carole.  "White House Staff Got Pay Raises, But There's More to the Story."   Jacksonville.com.  7 August 2011. Its not cheap to build anything in California. Land and labor is expensive and the state has some of the strictest environmental permitting rules anywhere. Those factors all drive up the cost of building homes, stores and even roads. Republican candidate for governor John Cox has pledged that, if elected, hell hack through Californias thicket of regulations, in an effort to reduce expenses. Specifically, Cox wants to reform the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, an agency he has described as overstaffed and wasteful. Recently, he claimed Caltrans spends an exorbitant amount to build and maintain each mile of roadway compared with other states. It costs nearly five times as much in California to build and maintain a mile of road as it does in the rest of the nation, Cox said in an interview published on thePolitical Vanguard websiteon Oct. 19, 2017. Cox made a similar claim in aSan Francisco Chronicleop-edon Oct. 18, 2017: California spends 4.7 times the national average for every mile of roadway we build and maintain, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI is a libertarian think tank which sourced the statistic to the Reason Foundation, another free market think tank. Following both statements, Cox went on to advocate for greater reliance on private construction to reduce expenses. Theres a debate about why its so expensive to build roads in California. But were not fact-checking that debate. Instead, were zeroing in on Coxs specific claims that California's road spending is nearly five times per mile compared with other states. Background on John Cox On his campaignwebsite, Cox describes himself as a Jack Kemp-style Republican who grew up on Chicagos south-side. Today, hes a San Diego businessman who founded an organization that repairs the homes of low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities. His priorities, as listed on his website, include lowering Californias taxes and fighting the influence of special interests. Cox is the chairman of Give Voters a Voice, an effort to repeal Californias recent gas tax increase, which was signed into law this year to raise money for road repairs. The increase includes a 12-cent per gallon gasoline tax increase, which went into effect this week. Our research We asked Coxs campaign for evidence supporting his claims. It pointed to recent reports by the Reason Foundation, which studies transportation spending. In 2013, the foundation published its20th Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems. That report shows California spent nearly $680,000 per mile in 2009 on roadways. That was 4.7 times as much as the national average of approximately $144,000 per mile spent in other states. That matches Coxs claim of nearly five times as much. But our research shows, and Coxs campaign has acknowledged, the information from 2009 is outdated. Anupdated 2016 Reason Foundation studyshows California spent about $420,000 per mile in 2013 compared with the national average spending of about $160,000 per mile in the same year. That data places Californias spending at about 2.5 times the national average, far less than Coxs claims. We asked Coxs staff about the discrepancy. David Kersten, a policy analyst with the campaign, said the candidate didnt have the most up-to-date figures. When he wrote that (San Francisco Chronicle) op-ed, he didnt have that new number, Kersten told us in an interview. Everybody was using the older report. Matt Shupe, Coxs campaign spokesman, said he and Kersten would update Cox on the new figure and use it in future statements. High admin costs Coxs staff noted that one category of Californias road spending, administrative costs, totals nearly five times as much the national average, even in the 2016 report. We checked and the report does show that, though Coxs staffers acknowledged thats not the same statement the candidate made in the op-ed or in his Political Vanguard interview and at the center of this fact check. Caltrans, the agency targeted by Cox, disagrees with the methodology of the Reason Foundation studies. A Caltrans spokesman said much of the studies roadway data is from local streets and roads not built or maintained by the state. The spokesman also noted that Californias state roadways are larger and more congested than in other states, making them more expensive to build and maintain. Representatives for the Reason Foundation did not respond to our interview requests. Our ruling Republican candidate for governor John Cox recently claimed it costs nearly five times as much in California to build and maintain a mile of road as it does in the rest of the nation. A study using 2009 data shows California spent 4.7 times as much per mile as the national average on roads. Updated data from 2013 shows the states spending still far above the national average at about 2.5 times the cost per mile, but far lower than Coxs figure. Coxs campaign staff told us the candidate relied on outdated information and would be updating this figure in future statements. While the candidates larger point about higher road spending in California appears to be correct, his specific claim about it being nearly five times as much per mile is outdated and wrong. We rate it False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Governors race John Cox is among several candidates competing to succeed Jerry Brown in the 2018 California governor's race. Others include Republican state AssemblymanTravis Allen, Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa; California TreasurerJohn Chiang;Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See ourTracking The Truthgovernors race fact-checkshere. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. 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 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. Republicans promised that their tax overhaul would save money for the middle class, and Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., was quick to make the case that it did. Im working alongside the White House and other members in the House to lessen the tax burden that currently weighs on so many Oklahomans, Mullin posted on hiscongressional blog. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the average American family of four will receive a $1,182 tax cut. Imagine what you could do with $1,182 more in your pocket! Mullin's talking point has been popular among House Republicans trying to sell the tax plan. In the past week, we've heard House SpeakerPaul Ryanand a Georgia congressman tout the same figure. In each case, they overstated the impact of the tax cut. Mullin did, too, but less so. Here's what you need to know. The figure comes from the House Ways and Means Committee, which wrote the tax bill. That committee calculated several scenarios for how the proposals changes could affect different types of taxpayers. The key elements in the committee's calculation involve tax brackets, the standard deduction and the child tax credit. Currently, there are seven brackets; these would be consolidated into four -- 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. In the meantime, the standard deduction would be raised from $12,000 to $24,000. And the child tax credit will be increased from $1,000 to $1,600, bolstered by a new $300 credit for parents and other dependents. The example Mullin highlighted refers to a family of four making $59,000 per year. Heres the scenario outlined in the Housesfact sheet, using the fictional example of Steve and Melinda with two middle school-aged children: As a result of lower tax rates, a significantly larger standard deduction, and an enhanced Child Tax Credit and Family Flexibility Credit, Steve and Melinda will pay over $1,182 less in taxes than last year, reducing their total tax bill from $1,582 to only $400. Thats more money they can use for whatever is important to them, whether its paying bills, purchasing a new refrigerator, or putting away savings for the future. The Ways and Means Committee said they chose a household income of $59,000 because its themedian household income nationally. (Mullin talked about families and families are not identical to households, but in Oklahoma, the median family income is about $58,000, so the distinction makes little difference in his state.) For that amount of income, a family today would get $12,700 from the standard deduction, $16,200 in personal exemptions, leaving $30,100 in taxable income. Of that, $18,650 would be taxed at 10 percent and $11,450 would be taxed at 15 percent, meaning the preliminary tax liability would be $3,582.50. That would be adjusted with $2,000 in child tax credits, producing a final tax liability of $1,582.50. Under the new tax bill, the family would take a larger $24,000 standard deduction (the proposal eliminates personal exemptions), leaving $35,000 in taxable income. At the 12 percent rate, that would mean $4,200 in preliminary liability. This would be offset by $3,200 in child tax credits and $600 in family credits, leaving a final tax liability of $400. Thats a $1,182.50 tax cut. So the number adds up, but there are some caveats that show it might not work out this way for all families like Steve and Melindas. The GOP bill eliminates or shrinks a number of widely used itemized deductions, and those factors arent taken into account in the figure House estimate. The deductions eliminated or pared back in the bill include the mortgage interest deduction (for future mortgages, it would be capped at half its previous maximum); the state and local tax deduction (only $10,000 in property tax deductions would be allowed); the medical expense deduction; the casualty loss deduction; and the student loan interest deduction. For example, nearly 9 million people with high medical bills deduct them on the taxes. Exchanging these changes for a higher standard deduction may benefit many taxpayers, particularly those who choose not to itemize today. But some taxpayers who depend on these itemized deductions today may end up worse off if the bill is passed as is, even with the higher standard deduction. For this type of taxpayer, the loss of even one of those deductions could conceivably wipe out that $1,182 gain for certain types of families. David Kamin, a tax and budget specialist at the New York University law school, told us that the bill has some wrinkles that can turn a tax cut into a tax hike. Kamin cited a combination of factors, including the sunsetting of the $300 per parent tax credit; the lack of inflation adjustments for the child tax credit, which effectively replace personal exemptions that were indexed to inflation; and the new use of an inflation adjustment measure known as chained CPI, which grows more slowly than the yardstick in current use. According toKamins calculations, the initial tax cut for the family making $59,000 becomes about a $450 tax increase by 2024 compared to the status quo. Heres the graph he put together:  Mullin didnt promise that the initial tax cut would last, as other Republicans have. After Mullin made his statement, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed the tax plan using a different approach. The committee found that while tax collections from people making under $40,000 would fall at first, they would go up in 2023. The groups that would do the best under the plan would be people making between $100,000 and $200,000, and those making over $1 million a year. Mullin said that the average American family of four would get a tax cut of $1,182. The number is a reasonable estimate, based on certain assumptions. What might not be obvious is that families who take advantage of deductions today might see their taxes rise. And even those who benefit immediately might see those gains turn into losses after 2023. So if you think this tax cut would be ongoing, or every year, you'd be wrong. Unlike his colleagues, however, Mullin didnt outright promise that the initial tax cut would last for more than one year. Mullin's statement therefore is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.