Clinton Paid 'Hard Drive Destruction' Company
On 3 May 2016, web site the Washington Free Beacon published an article provocativelytitled "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive and Document Destruction Company" (and subtitled "Payments could have purchased destruction of 14 hard drives"). The article reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign made payments totaling $187 to a document destruction company (American Document Destruction, Inc.) in February and March of 2016. The article implied (without directly stating) that the Clinton campaign might have spent the funds on destroying disk drives involved in the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of private, home-based servers and accounts for official business she conducted while serving as U.S. secretary of state: controversy The Hillary Clinton campaign made multiple payments to a company that specializes in hard drive and document destruction, campaign finance records show. The payments, which were recorded in February and March of 2016, went to the Nevada-based American Document Destruction, Inc., which claims expertise in destroying hard drives or anything else that a hard drive can come from. Our hard drive destruction procedures take place either at your site or at our secure facility in Sparks, NV, the companys website states. This decision is yours to decide based on cost and convenience to you. In either situation, the hard drive will be destroyed by a shredding. Nowhere did the Washington Free Beacon article offer any evidence that the services provided by American Document Destruction, Inc. to the Clinton campaign involved the destruction of hard drives or data from the private server she used while serving as secretary as state. In fact, the article didn't even offer any evidence that the provided services involved the destruction of hard drives at all (rather than paper documents). It simply noted that the Clinton campaign paid American Document Destruction, Inc. an amount of money that would have covered the costs of destroying 14 hard drives or shredding 37.4 cubic feet of paper (or, presumably, some combination of the two). A follow-up article from another news outletreported that Clinton's campaign also paid $50 to Shredco, a company that provides safe disposal of paper documents. outlet It's extremely unlikely either of these companies were involved in destroying material related to Clinton's use of a private e-mail server, for a number of reasons. First of all, the expenditures were openly reported to the Federal Election Commission, an unlikely move for a campaign furtively involved in destroying evidence relating to a federal investigation:     Second, anyone seeking to destroy sensitive information related to a high-level federal investigation probably wouldn't trust the task to businesses who charged only a few hundred dollars for the service, rather than to much more expensive (and presumably more private and secure) outfits. Moreover, even though Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't embroiled in an e-mail controversy, his campaign paid nearly three times as much as Clinton's did for similar services: paid    Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also contracted for shredding services in the same timeframe: timeframe    Paying for data destruction services is hardly suspect for an organization that processes thousands of donations each month, as the Hillary Clinton campaign does. Personal information from donors (such as credit card numbers) would, if printed or stored on hard drives, need to be securely destroyed to protect those donors. And given Bernie Sanders' repeated insistence that the average donation made to his campaign is $27, it seems reasonablethat his organization would also be contracting for similar services and paying for a higher volume of shreddable transactions than the Clinton campaign.  Bier, Jeryl.  "Hillary Clinton Campaign Paid Second Document Destruction Company."
The Weekly Standard.  5 May 2016. Schmidt, Michael S.  "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules."
The New York Times.  2 March 2015. Schoffstall, Joe.  "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive Aand Document Destruction Company."
The Washington Free Beacon.  3 May 2016. Federal Election Commission.  "Selected Presidential Reports for the 2016 March Monthly."
March 2016.
Sen. Mark Warner is pitching a plan that would allow some Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled and apply the additional tax revenue toward business tax cuts and incentives to spur the economy.Laying out his plan in anOp-Ed in the Financial Times, Warner notes that a Republican-Democrat compromise is being considered by the Obama administration that would temporarily extend all the tax breaks for two more years.However, this latter approach has problems beyond the $65bn that would be added to the deficit if we keep the cuts for people on the highest incomes, Warner writes. In Washington such temporary benefits also have a strange way of becoming permanent.Since Warners own plan hinges on reapplying the $65 billion in additional tax revenue that would come from allowing the tax breaks for the wealthy to expire, we thought it prudent to check the figure.Asked for the source, Warners communication director Kevin Hall pointed to estimates by the U.S. Treasury.Those projections show that allowing the cuts to expire along with adjustments to the capital gains and dividends would amount to $74.4 billion over two years.Heres why we mention that factor: If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the top tax rate on long-term capital gains would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dividends, which are currently taxed at 15 percent, would be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income with a top rate of 39.9 percent.But if we look exclusively at allowing the Bush cuts to expire, its $62.5 billion for the two years.Hall said Warner excludes the capital gains and dividends change because they might not be enacted, and capital gains isnt really what people talk about when they say income taxes.Gerald Prante, senior economist with the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, disagreed on that point. He also  suggested looking at more recent figures from the Office of Management and Budget, noting that the Treasury numbers are based upon estimates that have since been revised.The OMB figures show that allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire would generate more than $66 billion in tax revenue over two years. But thats including the adjustment to the capital gains.Without it, the two-year total is closer to $57 billion.Its worth noting, however, that the numbers from both sources look at the revenue to be gained from repealing the tax cuts permanently as opposed to eliminating them after a two-year extension.If there was only a two-year extension, the cost may not be $66 billion as [the] Joint Committee on Taxation/Treasury would assume tax planning that could change the costs, moving income between years, noted Prante. But overall, Warner's claim is fine...the $65 billion figure is not an exaggeration.So, if we use the Treasurys numbers, and look exclusively at the tax revenue raised by the two years worth of repealed cuts for the wealthy, then Warner is very close.Using the more recent OMB figures, hed be nearer  by including the capital gains adjustment, but is still in the neighborhood.Accepting that pinpointing a number using evolving projections is not an exact science, we find Warners claim to be Mostly True. PolitiFact has rapped Rob Portman for certain claims made during his U.S. Senate campaign. Weve credited Portman, too, for truthful statements. Thats the nature of the Truth-O-Meter: We play it as it lays.Which brings us to Portmanslatest television ad.In the 30-second spot, Portman points to out-of-control federal spending, dangerous deficits and an economic stimulus plan that he says isnt working. Since the $800 billion stimulus passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs, Portman says in the commercial.The claim about the stimulus program not working has been batted about repeatedly. The White House said when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, that unemployment would peak at 8 percent. Yet it is now 9.6 percent nationally, and 10.7 percent in Ohio.A number of economists say that even more jobs would have been lost were it not for the government spending to stimulate the economy. TheCongressional Budget Offices last quarterly evaluationsaid the stimulus increased national employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. There have been mistakes, missteps and gaffes documented in the spending programs, however, and Portman and other Republicans say the spending was poorly focused. This central question will be for historians and economists in the future to settle.Were merely taking note of Portmans claim because of this: He uses a lower number -- 100,000 jobs lost in Ohio since the stimulus passed -- than he used previously. When he put the figure at 150,000 in June,the Truth-O-Meter ruled it Half True-- because only 127,900 jobs had actually been lost, judging by the most widely accepted measure.That was based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures through May, the most current at the time. The numbers come from surveys of employers and are adjusted as the data becomes more complete. Using updated data, BLS now shows the post-stimulus job losses in Ohio came to 130,000 for the period Portman claimed in his earlier statement..But now its October and Portman is using a lower figure when he speaks. As he said in his newest ad, and repeated during an Oct. 8 debate at the City Club of Cleveland, since the stimulus bill passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.Yet heres the thing: Portmans rhetoric might actually be too cautious now. As measured by the latest BLS figures, which go through August and are preliminary, Ohio has 149,200 fewer jobs now than when the stimulus passed. Thats exquisitely close to 150,000.What happened?The state steadily lost jobs through 2009 but the numbers started improving early in the year, continuing through May. The summer saw a retraction, however, reducing Ohios employment count by a total of 19,200 jobs during June, July and August.So Portman was accurate and then some with his recent, more cautious statement. The Half True ruling nevertheless stands for his June claim, because PolitiFact doesnt believe in fortune-telling and Portmans numbers were in fact off when he made that statement.But we give credit where credit is due. So the Truth-O-Meter takes a turn to the right and rules on Portmans newest claim: True. Comment on this item. On 26 July 2017, supplement and paranoia peddling website NaturalNews.com made a sweeping conclusion about climate change based on a portion of a single chart they found. The post, by Mike "Health Ranger" Adams, uses a time series of satellite sea level data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to argue that climate change is no big deal and that the mainstream media is ignoring data that proves him right: post NASAs own data reveal that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. These data, of course, clearly contradict the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities  a key element of the climate change boogeyman fiction thats used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich. To "prove" this, Adams points to NASAs satellite altimetry data  used by scientists to precisely measure global average sea level change since 1993  which he says busts the whole global warming thing wide open, despite its fairly unambiguous long-term upward trend:    The NASA chart allegedly showing that sea level is not rising. Credit: NASA.  The region of the chart  around the last two years of the record  that allegedly proves global warming is a lie is highlighted above. It shows a period of generally flat sea level rise. Astute chart readers, however, may note that there have been a number of times throughout the record in which sea level rise has been flat, or even briefly reversed, before continuing the more dominant rising trend. According to University of New South Wales climatologist and sea level expert John Church, this is the reason the "media" is "silent" on the issue; in fact, it is in no way newsworthy: The short term fall over the last year or so reported on the Natural News website is nothing out of the ordinary and in fact the fall seems less than several previous examples of sea level fall, such as [the drop documented in 2010-2011]. It does not seem to be a particularly noteworthy event. To understand why the event is not noteworthy, one needs to understand both the short- and long-term drivers of sea level change. From a long-term global perspective, there are two primary drivers of sea level rise: the first is the balance between water trapped in ice and water contained within the ocean itself. Simply put, when ice that is trapped on land melts, it increases the volume of water in the ocean, causing sea level to rise. primary drivers The second major driver is known as thermal expansion  when water gets warmer it expands, increasing its volume. Research suggests that these two contributors alone explain 75 percent of the observed sea level rise since 1971. suggests These larger trends, however, can be dampened (or enhanced) by shorter term weather patterns. The most important factors to consider on this time-scale are the El Nio-La Nia cycle (which affects both water temperature, as well as evaporation and precipitation of moisture) and the hydrological issues associated with where rainwater falls on land. The best illustration of these factors combining to alter the overall trend of sea level rise is the 2010-2011 drop in sea level mentioned above. factors In this instance, the confluence of La Nia and a number of other atmospheric circulation patterns forced an anomalously large amount of rain to fall over the uniquely bowl-shaped continent of Australia, as described by Scientific American: described In most cases, though, water that falls on land eventually drains into the ocean. Even if a whole lot of rain fell in South America's Amazon, for example, it could slow sea-level rise for only about a couple of months, as it slowly made its way to the sea. So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia. [...] Lake Eyre is the lowest point in Australia. It's usually a dry, salty flat. But when it rains heavily, the basin fills, and the lake teems with new life, as long-dormant seeds spring to life and birds flock to the lake. From 2010 to 2011, enough rain fell on Australia to fill the lower part of the lake almost completely, and the upper portion at least 75 percent. Australia got about a foot of rain more than normal over that period, said [National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist John] Fasullo. The continent stored that excess water for long enough to change global sea levels. That the world's smallest continent can affect global sea levels this way is pretty extraordinary, said Fasullo. It's also rare. [...] In addition to La Nia, other climate variations also played a role. Together, they forced the extraordinary rainfall and water storage in the Australian continent. Eventually, of course, this water evaporates and returns to the ocean, where it joins the expanding and increasing global ocean reservoir. We spoke to Fasullo  the lead author on the study that documented the cause of the 2010-2011 drop in sea level  about this current hiatus, and he told us it in no way conflicts with our understanding of the connection between global warming and sea level rise: Of course, this leveling does not conflict with our understanding of sea level rise and its main drivers. It is well known for example that sea level falls (in an anomalous sense) at the end of an El Nio due to drought subsiding over many tropical land areas such as the Amazon (water moves from the ocean to land surface) and heat being released from the ocean (as the tropical upper Pacific Ocean releases heat to the atmosphere, causing contraction). [The] recent leveling of sea level rise comes on the heels of an unprecedented rate of rise during the four years that preceded it (2011-14). In addition to global warming, this rise was also strongly influenced by the El Nio-La Nia cycle and so it too should not be oversold. Ultimately, the story published by Adams attempts to disguise a weather as a climatological trend, University of California, Santa Cruz Climatologist Gary Griggs told us: One or two or three years of weather means very little in the long-term record of sea-level rise just as it would have very little meaning for global temperature records. Due to a variety of atmospheric circulation patterns and variations, temperatures vary from year to year as does rainfall, etc., the recent 4 year drought in the west is a good example. Using two years of data to make sweeping claims about trends in the global climate system, especially when such fluctuations are known and understood by science, is misleading and inaccurate, and as such we rank this claim as false. Adams, Mike.  "NASA Confirms: Sea Levels Have Been Falling Across the Planet for Two Years  Media Silent."
  Natural News.  26 July 2017. NASA.  "Understanding Sea Level"
  Accessed 1 August 2017. IPCC.  "Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]"
  2014 (Chapter 13). Boening, Carmen, et al.  "The 2011 La Nia: So Strong, the Oceans Fell."
  Geophysical Research Letters.  4 October 2012.
Ogburn, Stephanie Page.  "A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop."
  Scientific American.  20 August 2013. Rep. Dave Brat says the U.S. economy is stuck in the doldrums. The labor force participation rate - the share of the potential workforce that is actually working or looking for work - currently stands below 63%, the lowest level since the 1970s, Brat, R-7th, said in a May 24 Facebookpost. No doubt, the economy has had a choppy recovery from the Great Recession. But we wondered if its true that the percentage of potential workers who are employed or trying to find a job is at the lowest level in 40 years. Ivan Schwartz, spokesman for Brats re-election campaign, backed his statement by pointing to monthlytalliesby the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show that in April, the latest month for which figures were available when Brat made his comment, 62.8 percent of people who were 16 or older either were employed or actively seeking work. We should start by noting that 62.8 percent was not the lowest proportion of people in the labor force during the past several decades. The bottom came in September 2015, when the rate was 62.4 percent. Youd have to go back to October 1977 to find a time when the rate sank to that level. Still, Brat has a point in that the share of potential workers has been hovering near its lowest point in several decades. From the late 1970s up until the Great Recession, the percentage of people in the labor force for the most part was on the upswing. But in 2007, the year the recession started, the proportion of people in the labor force started to fall from 66.3 percent and continued that decline after the official end of the recession in June 2009. The drop continued until the September 2015 low point. Daniel Culbertson, an economist at the Indeed.com hiring website, told us that the economic downturn and simple demographics are the commonly cited cause of the drop in the percentage of people who are in the labor force. Those that cite a deteriorating economy believe more workers are becoming discouraged and leaving the labor force altogether due to lack of opportunity, low wages, etc., Culbertson wrote in an email. Others opine that the majority of the decline can be explained by aging baby boomers leaving the labor force as they begin to retire en masse. How much of the LFPR (labor force participation rate) decline is attributable to each is a common topic of debate among economists. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, attributes at least half of the drop to baby boomer retirements. That would have happened even if the recession never had occurred and the economy kept growing at the pace it had been in 2007, Burtless told us in an interview. Other factors are at play, Burtless said. Younger people who could enter the workforce are staying in college longer, he said. Some of the dropoff, particularly among potential workers ages 25 to 54 not in the labor force, remains a mystery, Burtless said. As we noted above, theres been a bit of an uptick in the percentage of people who are in the workforce since last September - but not much. It rose from 62.4 percent to 63 percent in March. But then it fell to 62.6 percent in May - a figure that was not available when Brat made his statement. Even so, its still up a bit from the September 2015 low point. A final note, our colleagues at PolitiFact National have examined a similarclaimthat Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas hasmadeover the years that the percentage of people working is at its lowest level since the 1970s, a statement Cruz has made to argue that Obama shares blame for the trend. PolitiFact has rated the statement Mostly True, saying the trend is real, but at least some of the drop is due to demographics beyond the presidents control. Brat, in his post, did not assign political blame for the drop. He predicted, however, that the situation will get worse if people  buy into solutions being offered by Democrats. Our ruling Brat said the labor force participation rate currently stands below 63%, the lowest level since the 1970s. His percentage is right, and the congressman is correct that the rate of potential workers in the labor force has been hovering near a four-decade low since the start of 2014. Our one minor quibble is that the actual low point occurred in September 2015, when the labor participation rate fell to 62.4 percent. Its been slightly higher this year. Still, we rate Brats statement True. Claim:  The plastic strip embedded in U.S. bank notes enable the Feds to tell how much money you have on you.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This past weekend, a friend visiting our house told us that the anti-counterfeiting strip put in newly printed paper money can be used to determine how much cash you are carrying.  She said that the ever-present "they" at the airport have a machine that can determine how much cash you have on your person or in your luggage, and if you are carrying a sufficiently large amount of cash, you will be detained by the police and interrogated until you confess your guilt as a drug smuggler.  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I did not get this in an e-mail but my bank teller in Kirksville, MO told me this one.  Evidently there is an urban legend floating around that the new "security strip" in the new $20's can be read by satellites with the implication being the Govt. can beam a satellite on you and eventually, when all the bills in circ. will have these, be able to tell how much $ you are carrying around.  This teller told me that she has had customers come in requesting "no new $20s" for this reason! We had a good laugh about it and we both agreed that the Govt. is going to be sorely disappointed if they turned this hypothetical satellite on us! Origins:  The ongoing effort to stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters has led to the inclusion of a number of security features in U.S. currency. One countermeasure in particular has come to be the focus of a widely-believed bit lore: the embedded inscribed security thread. According to scuttlebutt, the purpose of the thread isn't really to make it more difficult for the ill-intentioned to introduce   worthless currency into circulation by fooling its recipients into thinking it genuine, but instead to allow the government to know exactly how much money anyone is carrying at any particular moment. With the use of special scanners, or possibly a beam from a distant satellite, the Feds can quickly count the value of all bank notes being carried on or about one's person and thus track how much money is entering or leaving the country, and with whom. This knowledge, says the behind-the-hand whisperings, is used to finger drug dealers and smugglers. The rumor is bunk. The strip's sole purpose is the foiling of counterfeiters. It, along with a number of other security features worked into the nation's bank notes, make it far harder on the criminal element to produce phony bills that will be mistaken for the real thing. Other features include the microprinting of "The United States of America" within the rim surrounding the portraits on bills, a watermark displayed elsewhere on the bill of the figure in the portrait, and optically variable ink (OVI) which changes from green to black in the number in the lower right-hand corner of the bill when viewed from different angles. As for the suspect strip, it is made of polyester and is inscribed with the denomination of the bill. Nothing about the composition of these strips renders them detectable by scanner or satellite. In 2004, the false belief attaching to this security feature was enhanced by the claim of these bands containing RFID tags. As technology advanced, so did the rumor, leading many to microwave their $20 bills into ashen submission by falling for the canard that nuking their currency would disable these  RFID tags transmitters. Yet the belief about governmental detection of concealed sums via a subterfuge worked into the currency even predates the polyester security threads. In the 1980s, those similarly worried about being tracked by Big Brother fretted over the ink with which bank notes were printed, muttering to themselves that the "magnetic ink" they believed to have been used rendered the bills somehow magnetic and thus detectable by machine. Back then, the concern was more that this magnetic money would serve to pinpoint the location of the person carrying it rather than it give away how much of it was being ported, but it is another form of the same belief. One confirmation that nothing in and of itself is detectable about the polyester strips embedded in bank notes arises out of the news about security technologies now used at some U.S. airports, including Chicago's O'Hare. Were caches of greenbacks already being ferreted out via their embedded threads, descriptions of the BodySearch scanner, a device that uses special "backscatter" X-rays to produce images of items that might be concealed under passengers' clothing, would not always impart the glad tidings that this gizmo reveals the presence of currency as well as narcotics, plastic explosives, and plastic weapons.  While in the main, the "sneakily embedded technology allows for the surreptitious tracking of people or their assets" rumor attaches to currency and blames the government for the supposed spying, the belief also carries to other items and points fingers at other parties.  [Kamradt, 2003] Some students have not picked up their new ID cards through the re-carding project, which ends today, because of a rumor that there is a locator chip inside the IDs so Purdue can track their whereabouts. "To dispel the transponder rumors, I was closely involved in developing the requirements for production of the ID cards and I can ensure students that no secret electronic devices were embedded in these cards," said Terry Schroeder, project manager for the Purdue ID Re-carding Project. "From my understanding, most of the group that met to discuss this issue (as a result of distributed flyers) were wearing aluminum foil beanies."  [Mulkins, 2000] I heard that a person carrying a large number of $100 bills, going through the PikePass readers, could be detected and the exact amount of money determined. The authorities are using PikePass to detect drug dealers and then confiscating the money, even confiscating the money of innocent persons. (PikePass is a prepaid toll device containing a battery and a radio-frequency modulator placed on the windshield of a vehicle.  As a car bearing one travels under a transmitter overhanging a turnpike lane, the device intercepts the signal being broadcast and returns a signal exclusive to that particular PikePass customer. The signal is read, and the toll is subtracted from the customer's account.) PikePass Whereas student ID cards and prepaid toll signalers do at least have a whiff of the enigmatic to their technology, which works to encourage belief that some of that incomprehensibility might be of nefarious intent (we mistrust what we don't understand, after all), this next expression of the rumor is even farther afield: [Collected on the Internet, 1999] I recently received an email telling me that I need to take the labels off my canned good and mark the bare cans with a marker, or at least black out the UPCs. Why? Well, it seems the government has helicopters equipped with scanners that can read the UPCs of the food you have stored. Ostensibly, the government is doing this so they can confiscate food for redistribution in the up coming Y2K breakdown of society. When asked to verify, the poster informed me she was told this by a 'family friend" who flies one of these scanner-equipped helicopters. Of course he doesn't want to be named for his own safety, but he risked telling his dear friends because he loves them. While most folks will laugh off the thought of their soup cans spying on them, the same cannot be said of the belief that their long green is being counted by surveillance satellites sent into orbit by a government intent upon keeping tabs on its citizens  a great many appear to believe that.  Barbara "watch your money, don't worry about your money watching you" Mikkelson Sightings:  In a first-season episode of television's The X Files ("E.B.E.," original air date 18 February 1994), a member of a group that believes the government is up to any number of monstrous conspiracies takes a $20 bill from Agent Scully, holds it up to the light, rips the left side off, and pulls out its security strip, saying, "They use this magnetic strip to track you. Whenever you go through a metal detector at an airport, they know exactly how much you're carrying." Additional information:        Inscribed Security Thread   (Secret Service)        Money Design Features   (Secret Service)        The Redesigned $20 Note   (Bureau of Engraving)   Last updated:  19 May 2011   Garber, Andrew.  "New Airport Gadgets Strip, Sniff, Scan."  The Seattle Times.  23 October 2001  (p. A1).   Kamradt, Kori.  "Officials Dismiss Rumors About New IDs."  The [Purdue University] Exponent .  14 November 2003.   Mulkins, Phil.  "PikePass Can't Count Dope Dealers' Money."  Tulsa World.  28 July 2000.   Webb, Tom.  "U.S. Currency to Get Makeover."  The Denver Post.  14 July 1994  (p. A4).   Zane, Maitland.  "Counterfeit-Proof Cash Makes Its Debut."  The San Francisco Chronicle.  26 July 1991  (p. A1).   The Associated Press.  "O'Hare Officials Install Scanner, Hoping to Replace Body Searches."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  23 November 1999  (p. B2). A thread authored by the Twitter account "Capitol Hunters" went viral in December 2022 when it alleged that billionaire Elon Musk lied about his educational background, specifically regarding a bachelor of arts degree in physics from the University of Pennsylvania, as well as his claim of attending, briefly, a Ph.D. program at Stanford. This article explores the controversy around the physics degree. thread Elon Musk  In early biographies, Musk stated he received degrees in economics and physics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1995. In a 2002 SEC filing for the company PayPal, for example, Musk provided this information regarding his educational and professional background: 2002 SEC filing PayPal Mr. Musk co-founded Zip2 Corp. in 1995 where he worked in a number of roles including Chairman, CEO and CTO from 1995 to February 1999. Mr. Musk received a B.S. in Physics from the University of Pennsylvania and a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1995. In a 2007 lawsuit alleging that Musk stole business secrets, internet advertising entrepreneur John O'Reilly sued Musk over allegedly false statements Musk made to secure a business meeting with him in 1995. In that filing, O'Reilly claimed: 2007 lawsuit Musk has falsely claimed to have a degree in Physics from the University of Pennsylvania that he obtained in 1995, when in fact he has no such degree and the only degree he holds was obtained later than that. Upon information and belief, Musk's only known undergraduate degree is a Bachelor's of Science in Economics, obtained from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. The suit, which ended with a ruling in Musk's favor, entered into the public record copies of Musk's diplomas. These documents were then used in a 2009 lawsuit filed by Tesla founder Martin Eberhard, who accused Musk of "taking control of the company [Tesla], orchestrating his ouster in 2007 and attempting to 'rewrite history' to take credit for developing the pioneering electric Roadster the two men worked together to create." a ruling The case was settled out of court, but Musk spoke about his academic background during a deposition compelled by this case. Musk, in that instance, equivocated about the timing of when he actually received these degrees. out of court Q. Okay. So you received a B.S. in Computational Physics from Penn?Musk: Yeah. [] Musk: Actually, I should be clear about that. So, I obtained the one Graduate degree in Business and Physics but [had] an agreement with the.. University of Pennsylvania. They said that I could have.. I could complete the English and History credit when I was no longer a student at Stanford. So they would delay transmitting the degree until I had done that." This explanation also comes up in an early edition of a biography of Musk written by reporter Ashlee Vance. Vance was unable to confirm the specific academic timeline in Musk's early biographies. In an appendix, however, Vance explained his research on the topic and included Musk's explanation for the discrepancy in dates and degrees : an appendix While playing detective, O'Reilly unearthed some information about Musk's past that's arguably more interesting than the allegations in the lawsuit. He found that the University of Pennsylvania granted Musk's degrees in 1997two years later than what Musk has cited. I called Penn's registrar and verified these findings. Copies of Musk's records show that he received a dual degree in economics and physics in May 1997. Musk  had an explanation for the weird timing on his degrees from Penn. "I had a History and an English credit that I agreed with Penn that I would do at Stanford," he said. "Then I put Stanford on deferment. Later, Penn's requirements changed so that you don't need the English and History credit. So then they awarded me the degree in '97 when it was clear I was not going to go to grad school, and their requirement was no longer there." "I finished everything that was needed for a Wharton degree in '94. They'd actually mailed me a Wharton degree. I decided to spend another year and finished the physics degree, but then there was that History and English credit thing. I was only reminded about the History and English thing when I tried to get an H-1B visa and called the school to get a copy of my graduation certificate, and they said I hadn't graduated. Then they looked into the new requirements, and said it was fine." The explanations for the delay in degree granting are not entirely consistent, the Capitol Hunters Twitter account noted, and that account has also called into question the existence of the "new requirements" regarding History and English that would have facilitated Musk's being granted a degree after the fact. noted Another area of controversy concerns the appearance and nature of the physics degree, specifically. Certificates of both a Penn economics degree and an alleged physics degree are included in documents filed as part of the O'Reilly and Eberhard lawsuits. While the economics diploma filed as evidence specifically indicates the academic discipline, name, and other details involved in the degree, the physics diploma appears to be a largely blank diploma and indicates no specific concentration: documents    (@CapitolHunters) The University of Pennsylvania Department of Physics and Astronomy does describe Musk as an alumnus. In 2009  the same year the dispute with Eberhard was litigated  Musk gave Penn's Center for Particle Cosmology a "generous endowment" allowing for an annual "Elon Musk Public Lecture": generous endowment The Elon Musk Public Lecture is made possible through a generous endowment gifted to the Center for Particle Cosmology in 2009 - its inaugural year. Mr. Musk is an alumnus of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Penn, and a proud advocate for the preparation that a physics education provides in many different careers. In 2019, Aaron Greenspan, owner of the legal website Plainsite, as well as a frequent critic of, and litigant against, Elon Musk, asked Penn for a statement on Musk's degrees. In response, the university's public affairs office stated that: critic response Elon Musk earned a B.A. in physics and a B.S. in economics (concentrations: finance and entrepreneurial management) from the University of Pennsylvania. The degrees were awarded on May 19, 1997. The University of Pennsylvania considers Musk to be a graduate of both the economics department and the physics department. Musk's past statements about his educational background, however, have been, at best, imprecise. He has claimed on several occasions to have received a physics degree in 1995  a claim that was never fully true but which may have aided Musk's early business career.  APPENDIX 1 - Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future (2017). https://publicism.info/biography/elon_musk/14.html. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. CapitolHunters. "Someone Has to Say It: Elon Musk Has Lied for 27 Years about His Credentials." Twitter, https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1593307541932474368. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. Martin Eberhard v Elon Musk et Al. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3cberzj42/superior-court-of-california-county-of-san-mateo/martin-eberhard-v-elon-musk-et-al/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. "O'REILLY v. MUSK | No. H034863. | 20100928061 | Leagle.Com." Leagle, https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20100928061. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. O'Reilly v. Musk, No. H035288 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/oreilly-v-musk-1. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. Tesla Investor Latest To Sue Elon Musk For Libel By Tweet - Law360. https://www.law360.com/articles/1275973/tesla-investor-latest-to-sue-elon-musk-for-libel-by-tweet. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. Yarow, Jay. "Tesla Settles Lawsuit--Everyone Is A Founder." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-founders-end-bitter-legal-fight-2009-9. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. https://www.plainsite.org/documents/tbdmox/2019-email-from-the-university-of-pennsylvania-confirming-elon-musks-physics-degree/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017. Hillary Clinton outlined her economic vision in detailfor the first time during her presidential campaign, calling for a growth and fairness economy in a speech at the New School in Manhattan on July 13, 2015. She also lambasted a select groupRepublican presidential candidates for their purportedly out-of-touch approach toward the working class.Among the targets were Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Clinton singled out Rubiosproposed tax plan: Another priority must be reforming our tax code. Now, we hear Republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. But take a good look at their plans. Sen. Rubio's would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. We decided to fact-check the somewhat intricate claim. Rubios plan Clintons campaign directed us to ablog postfrom the Tax Policy Center,an independent think tank that analyzes tax policy. The article concerns Rubios plan in general, but the pertinent part reads, Those in the top 0.1 percent, who make $3.3 million and up, would be in line for an average tax cut of $240,000  a boost in after-tax income of 3.8 percent. Is $240,000 more than three times the earning power of a typical family? Her campaign pointed usto U.S. Census Bureau data that showed median household incomeas $53,046 for the period 2009 to 2013. So those numbers back up Clintons statement. But there is one minor complication: The article from the Tax Policy Center is based on an analysis of Utah Sen. Mike Lees 2013 plan,notRubios plan (actually a joint venture with Lee) that was released in 2015 and is similar to the original Lee plan. Generally speaking, the Rubio-Lee plan groups people into two income tax brackets, 15 percent or 35 percent, the higher of which would kick in at an individual income of $75,000. Thats a decrease from the seven brackets currently in place. Another centerpiece of the plan is a $2,500 tax credit given to parents for each child under sixteen. Thats the broad outline, but the plan still lacks some details. There are critical unresolved issues that make it difficult for us to do an analysis of Rubios current plan, said Howard Gleckman, resident fellow at the Tax Policy Center and author of the blog post. For example, Gleckman points out that the Rubio-Lee plannever specifiesexactly what would happen to apersonal tax credit of $2,000, a subsidy that would be available to anybody who claimed it on their tax returns. If it were included as a refundable tax credit (meaning people could get a check back), it would have a significant impact on low-income families. As of now, their incomes would actually decrease under the Lee plan, according to the Tax Policy Centers analysis. Qualitatively, the rough sense is a very generous tax cut for high-income people, said Gleckman, adding, What were not sure about is low-income people. So low-income people might get some kind of tax break under Rubios plan, or they might not. The other thing to know about Clintons statement is that the wealthy get a tax break under Rubios plan because he wants tax reductions, and the wealthy pay the most taxes. The reason why the top is getting whats seemingly a big tax cut is that theyre already taxed at a much higher rate, said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist at the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group. Under the Rubio plan, the top tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Pomerleau added that its crucial to remember that the plan proposes tax cuts across all income brackets, not just the top ones, and often at higher percentages for those with lower incomes. Pomerleau, however, did say that he found Clintons claim plausible. Our ruling Clinton said that Rubios tax plan would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. It is possible to take issue with the statement in some ways. The source of her claim uses an earlier version of Rubios plan in its analysis,  and she said $3 million when she should have said $3.3 million. But the thrust of her statement is sound. An analysis of a plan extremely similar to the one put forth by Rubio would cut taxes for those making $3.3 million and more by nearly $240,000, which is more than three times the U.S. median household income of $53,046. We rate her statement MostlyTrue. CORRECTION, 2:50 p.m., Sept. 15, 2016:After this fact check posted, readers pointed out we'd presented Texas and California GDP figures in billions of dollars when relevant figures actually reflected productivity in the trillions of dollars. We made appropriate changes. Our rating of the claim didn't change. In a tweet adorned with images of a rocket, a wind turbine, a steer, a factory and a microscope, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared: If Texas were a country, it would have the 10th highest GDP in the world. If so, thats gained ground.When we looked into a 2012 claimcomparing productivity in Texas versus the nations of the world, Texas ranked 14th internationally. So, we decided to put Abbotts statement to the Texas Truth-O-Meter. The fine print in Abbotts tweet states that it's based on information from Glenn Hegar, the Texas state comptroller, and from the International Monetary Fund and Bureau of Economic Analysis. When we asked, Lauren Willis of the comptrollers office emailed usits chartindicating that in 2015, Texas had a gross domestic product of $1.59 trillion -- placing it 10th among countries behind the U.S. ($17.95 trillion) and eight countries including Brazil ($1.77 trillion). The chart shows Texas ahead of No. 11 Canada ($1.55 trillion) as well as Korea, Russia, Australia, Spain, Mexico and four other countries. GDP, the most-used measure of national economic output, isdefinedas the market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in country. SOURCE:Email, Lauren Willis, director of communications, Office of Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Sept. 6, 2016 For our part, we found 2015GDP figures posted in April 2016by the International Monetary Fund matching the GDP figures in the comptrollers chart. Willis also pointed out aWorld Bank breakoutof GDPs by nation for 2015; the presented figures didnt perfectly align with the comptrollers chart, we found, though the ranking of the top 10 countries did. Willis also sent a web link to the bureaus U.S. and state-by-state GDP figures for 2015 and previous years. From the BEA, we downloaded figures indicating that in 2015, Texas had the GDP of $1.59 trillion that Abbott relied on. Then again, more populous California had a GDP of $2.46 trillion, which would have placed the Golden State No. 6 in the world if it were a nation, nudging Texas to No. 11.We recently found toothat California in 2015 had greater per-capita productivity than Texas. SOURCE:Website,Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product, Interactive TablesBureau of Economic Analysis, last updated June 14, 2016 (GDP figures downloaded Sept. 6, 2016) Our ruling Abbott said that if Texas were a country, its economy would rank 10th in the world. Thats so, figures show, if you leave out a bigger state, California. Considering California, in fairness, Texas would rank 11th in the world. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cdc4ac03-aab9-4c82-b255-b39c9f4656db Claim: The McDonald's fast food chain will be closing 17,000 locations due to an increase in the minimum wage.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Is McDonald's closing 17,000 stores because of the $15.00 minimum wage? Origins: On 28 October 2015, the web site Now 8 News published an article reporting that 17,000 McDonald's locations would be closing by 1 April 2016 due to a recent increase in the minimum wage: The largest chain of fast food restaurants in the world has announced that the minimum wage increase from $8.75 an hour to $15 an hour has caused them to schedule the close 17,000 restaurants in the United States.With already decreasing profits, McDonald says this is the "straw that broke the camels back." The above-quoted story is a piece of fiction. The United States minimum wage, as established by federal law, is still $7.25 per hour (although some cities have approved a gradual raising of their minimum wages to $15 an hour), and McDonald's has not announced that they will be closing 17,000 stores due to any wage increases.Now 8 News is one of many fake news sites that attempts to attract traffic through the frequent publication of false rumors under clickbait headlines. frequent false rumors This isn't the first time that a fake news story has used "McDonald's response to a$15 minimum wage" as its basis. The equally disreputableNews Examiner posted a fake news story claiming that the restaurant chain would start using a robotic staff to avoid paying their employees $15 per hour. robotic   Last updated: 4 November 2015 Originally published: 4 November 2015