Is Bernie Sanders: The Story of a Defeated Life?
In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019.
When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. Soon after the White House released the Economic Report of the President on Feb. 11, 2010, Republicans derided its boast that the massive economic stimulus championed by President Barack Obama may in time be viewed as one of the great triumphs of timely, effective countercyclical macroeconomic policy.Washington Democrats still dont get it, House Republican Leader John Boehner wrote in a press release. Two days after the president brushed off Republicans' concerns that Democrats' job-killing policies are causing great uncertainty for small businesses, the White House is now declaring in a new report that the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' will be one of historys 'great triumphs.' The very same report, however, notes that unemployment will average 10 percent for the rest of the year. The Obama administration promised the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and keep joblessness below 8 percent.The report does, in fact, project that the unemployment rate will hover at about 10 percent through this year. With many press accounts of the economic report highlighting the forecast that job gains for 2010 will average 95,000 a month, those two facts may seem at odds. They are not.A certain number of jobs need to be created every month simply to hold the unemployment rate stable, said Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. That's because the working-age population is growing.In addition, as the job market improves -- or is even perceived as improving -- some people who had given up on looking for work may get back in the game and be added to the unemployed ranks. So there would have to be about 100,000 jobs added a month just for the unemployment rate to tread water.Even still, the report says, there's evidence the labor market is stabilizing.That's because the economy shed 691,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2009, 428,000 in the second quarter, 199,000 in the third, and 69,000 in the fourth. So to have the number of jobs increasing even moderately is an improvement.But Boehner's statement includes an assumption masquerading as a fact: It's that the stimulus has failed if unemployment rates remain at 10 percent through the year. While Boehner and other Republicans have long cited rising unemployment as proof that the stimulus hasn't created jobs, many reputable and independent economists say it has, and that the unemployment rate would be even worse without it. The Economic Report of the President estimates the stimulus has already saved or created 1.5 million to 2 million jobs, and is on track to save 3.5 million by the end of this year. We gave President Obama aHalf Truewhen he claimed in his State of the Union address that the stimulus has already saved or created 2 million jobs, because that was on the high side of projections from his Council of Economic Advisers, the independent Congressional Budget Office and several other reputable economic forecasters. But we should note all of those forecasters put the number north of 1 million jobs.In other words, just because the unemployment rate may stay at a whopping 10 percent, doesn't mean that the stimulus didn't prevent an even worse catastrophe, Burtless said.As for the last bit of Boehner's statement, we gave aBarely Trueto House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and other Republicans who have continued to claim that Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent. That was a forecast based on where the unemployment rate was expected to go without a stimulus. That forecast was in line with other independent forecasts at the time, but proved overly optimistic, as Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged again in a press conference on Feb. 11, 2010.So Boehner is correct that the president's economic report forecasts the unemployment rate will remain at 10 percent through this year (even as jobs are added). But again, when Boehner cites that statistic as proof that the stimulus is having no immediate effect on jobless rates as promised, it ignores the possibility that if not for the stimulus the unemployment rate might be even worse. Many economic forecasters believe that's exactly the case. Still, projections about the number of jobs saved or created by the stimulus are just that, projections. And many economists believe it is still way too early to measure its effectiveness. But we think it's misleading to simply point to a stagnant unemployment rate as proof that the stimulus isn't working. And so we rate Boehner's statement Mostly True. Sampling the local fare is a staple on the menu of any politician worth his salt.For that reason alone, John Kasich is fortunate to be governor of Ohio.Ohio is the brass buckle on the burger belt. It is Ground Beef Zero.It is Mondo Carne.Rivals stake competing claims, but Ohio can credit two brothers from Akron, Charles and Frank Menches, for inventing and naming the hamburger in 1885. Menches Brothers Restaurants still feature the original recipe.The oldest burger chain, White Castle, is headquartered in Columbus, not far from the home of Wendy's in Dublin. The founder of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee' chains came from Upper Sandusky. The Big Boy, a meal in one on a double-deck bun, was created as the first double-decker in California, but Manners' in Cleveland and Frisch's in Cincinnati gave it white sauce perfection, inspiring the Big Mac.And so on.When Kasich took his State of the State address on the road last week to Lima, he made a stop that followed the lead of other visitors and then tweeted about it: Enjoyed a quick Kewpee burger before the State of the State in Lima tonight.The Ohio Republican Party tweeted its own comment: Kewpie burgers are delicious. An Ohio institution. And they'll cost less thanks to John Kasich's tax cut.Is that true -- or  a whopper? PolitiFact Ohio dug in with relish.First, we will stipulate that Kewpee burgers are delicious and worthy of the restaurant's slogan: Hamburger pickle on top! Makes your heart go flippity flop!We agree that the diner is an Ohio institution, even though @ohiogop misspelled its name. One of the oldest burger chains in the country, Kewpee was started in Michigan (Wendys founder Dave Thomas once said that the Kewpee near his home in Michigan inspired him to go into the business) but has its headquarters in Lima. Its downtown location is on the National Register of Historic Places.Kasich's tax cut cited by @ohiogop is the sales tax plan that is part of the governor's proposed two-year budget. To help pay for a 20 percent cut in the state's income tax, the plan would cut the state sales tax rate, from 5.5 percent to 5 percent, while widening its scope to nearly all service purchases.Restaurant meals -- such as Kasich's pre-speech Kewpee burger -- are covered by the sales tax. Take-out meals are not taxed, and would not be under Kasich's proposal.In Allen County, where Lima is located, state and county taxes combine for a 6.5 percent sales tax rate, the Ohio Department of Taxation told us. Under Kasich's plan, the rate would drop to 5.8 percent.That would cut the tax on a plain Kewpee burger -- priced at $1.80 each -- from 12 cents to 10 cents, according to the tax collection schedule posted by the Department of Taxation.So what's the take-away?It is accurate to say that a delicious burger eaten at the iconic Kewpee in Lima would cost 2 cents less under Kasich's tax proposal, leaving all other factors unchanged. Someone eating two burgers a week would save enough in 10 months to buy another burger.The price of take-out burgers would remain the same, however. Thats an important clarification that gives the statement a rating of Mostly True. A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' owing a lack sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details for the sake of trying to frame her as being irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes":  Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016. revealed The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities: op-ed I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans, and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations -- however slowly but surely. Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC.  sued Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. reported Bluestein, Greg.  "Georgia 2018: Abrams Owes More Than $50K to IRS."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 March 2018. Abrams, Stacey.  "Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me for Governor of Georgia."
  Fortune.  24 April 2018. Elliott, Richard.  "Investment Company Sues Brian Kemp Over $500K Loan."
  WSB-TV.  12 June 2018. Judd, Alan.  "For Brian Kemp, Suit Over Bad Loan Reveals Political, Financial Perils."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  21 September 2018. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003. Claim:  A construction worker survived an accident that poked an 18-inch-long drill bit through one eye and out the side of his skull.    . Origins:  Although we dread the gory industrial accidents that leave their victims dead or result in the loss of a limb (or more), other types of on-the-job injuries can strike us as far more horrific. One such accident took place on 15 August 2003, when Ron Hunt, a Truckee, California, construction worker, landed face-first on a large drill  bit. Hunt was working in the Tahoe Donner Subdivision in Truckee, standing atop a six-foot ladder while drilling over his head, when he gave the drill an extra push to bore a hole.  As he felt the ladder begin to wobble out from under him, he tried tossing his power drill aside (a standard practice in the construction industry, intended to prevent workers from injuring themselves attempting to regain grips on out-of-control power tools) before falling to the ground.  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to throw the drill far enough away, and he landed upon it face-first.  The 18-inch-long, 1.5-inch diameter chip auger drill bit pierced Hunt's right eye and exited through the side of his skull.  As Hunt described the mishap: By the time I was falling, and I let the drill go down, I was already on top of it.  The drill was facing up but it was off. When the drill hit, it just exploded my eye. It skewered me. I ran my hands up the drill bit, up to my eye, and put my other hand in the back of my head and felt it coming through the back of my head, and that's where pretty much the shock set in. The first thing I thought was 'Am I going to die?' I knew it was serious. I was scared. I didn't know if it was in my brain or not. The only other worker on the site that morning, Forrest Keating, heard Hunt call for help and rushed to assist him: The first thing I saw was this drill sticking out about 6 inches from the back of his head and 6 inches out the front. It was a trip, like something out of a horror movie. I was amazed he was still alive. Keating removed his shirt and attempted to stem the flow of blood gushing from Hunt's eye by wrapping the shirt around the drill.  He then ran   300 yards to a nearby house to summon medical help, and when paramedics arrived they released the body of the drill from the bit and loaded Hunt onto a gurney.  Hunt (conscious throughout his ordeal) was then flown by helicopter to Washoe Medical Center in Reno, Nevada, where doctors pondered their options for treating the bizarre injury.  Miraculously, although the drill bit tunneled between Hunt's scalp and his skull as it came out of the side of his head, it pushed his brain aside rather than pushing into it, sparing him from death, brain damage, or paralysis.  Dr. Paul Ludlow, an ear, nose and throat specialist who was the facial trauma physician on call that morning, initially intended to cut off the drill bit but eventually decided that the best approach was to, in effect, unscrew it from Hunt's head: We had to either cut down on it, which meant making a rather long incision through a lot of muscle, or just unscrew it - twist it all the way through and out. We would have cut it off, but after a few minutes of drilling, we noticed that it was loose. And so we just put down our blade and twisted the bit. Hunt had sufficiently recovered from his injuries by early September to appear on national television programs such as CNN News and ABC's "Good Morning America."  Although he was truly fortunate not to have suffered more severe injuries (or damage to his motor or speech skills), he came away from the accident far from unscathed: besides suffering a fractured skull (which required a second operation to insert two titanium plates to reinforce the fractured bone), he lost an eye and now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and rehabilitation costs.  According to news accounts, Hunt is not covered by state compensation for on-the-job injuries, and he was a self-employed worker with no medical insurance. Injuries of this type always call to mind the case of Phineas Gage, who in 1848 survived an accident which blew a 3-foot, 7-inch tamping iron under a cheek bone and completely out through the top of his head.   Although Gage lived on for almost another dozen years, he suffered dramatic changes in personality and was subject to epileptic seizures in his final months. Phineas Gage Last updated:  14 July 2006    Sources:   Hess, Scott.  "Man Survives Horrific Construction Accident."   Sierra Sun.  27 August 2003.    Powers, Lenita.  "Freak Accident Draws National Attention."   Reno Gazette-Journal.  2 September 2003.    Associated Press.  "Man Survives 18-Inch Drill Bit Through Head; X-Ray Proves It."   Reno Gazette-Journal.  2 September 2003.    Associated Press.  "Construction Worker Survives Drill Through Head."   CNN.com.  3 September 2003. Duringa speechin which he warmed up to U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryan, gave a shout-out toVince Lombardiand even name-droppedKanye West, president-electDonald Trumpalso reaffirmed his promise to cut taxes. Trump appeared Dec. 13, 2016 with vice president-electMike Penceand a host of Badger State Republicans, including Ryan, at the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center. This stop on his multi-state thank-you tour was mostly a campaign-style rally, but there was some policy, too. Midway into his remarks,Trump said: Were going to undertake one of the great tax reforms and simplifications in American history. This includes a massive tax cut for themiddle-classand middle-class families from Wisconsin, too. Were also going to lower ourbusiness tax rateso that new companies will come to our shores and hire workers in cities like right here. Is that OK? Thats what we want. Were going to bring our rates down from 35 percent, were going to try to get it down to 15 percent. So, right now -- and by the way the jobs will pour in -- so, right now, were the highest-taxed nation in the world. And when we finish, well be one of the lower taxed, one of the lower. Whether the president-elect keeps his promises on taxes will be something to be determined by PolitiFact Nationals Trump-O-Meter, whichwill be launchedin 2017. But we can answer now whether Americas business tax rate is the highest in the world. Top U.S. rate: 35% The corporate income tax rates in the United States range from15 to 35 percent. And that 35 percent top rate -- at least as a statutory rate (more on that below) -- is relatively high. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishesthe top corporate tax ratesfor the35 countriesthat belong to its organization, which includes most advanced, industrialized nations. The U.S top rate of 35 percent ranks first, just ahead of France, 34.4 percent; Belgium, 33 percent; and Australia and Mexico, 30 percent. On the low end: Switzerland, 8.5 percent; Ireland, 12.5 percent; Latvia and Canada, 15 percent; and Germany, 15.8 percent. Sometimes references are made to a combined corporate tax rate, which includes federal and state corporate taxes; the U.S. combined rate is38.9 percent. But Trump was referring to the 35 percent federal rate, the one he vows to reduce. There are, however, two clarifying points to make. Other nations, and what is paid To back Trumps statement, his campaign cited aForbes articlethat noted the United States has the highest corporate rate among industrialized nations. But Trump didnt limit his statement to industrialized nations. The accounting firm PwC tracks the top federal corporate tax rates for155 countries.That listshows five other countries that also have a top rate of 35 percent: Argentina, Chad, Congo, Malta and Zambia. And there are two countries with higher top corporate tax rates: United Arab Emirates, 55 percent; and Puerto Rico, 39 percent. It also needs to be understood that Americas 35 percent top rate is the statutory rate -- before deductions -- but U.S. companies arent actually taxed at that rate. Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits. Indeed, aMarch 2016 reportby the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability, although larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. And aMay 2016 paperby Reed College economics professor Kimberly Clausing found U.S. multinational firms have used tax planning to generate effective tax rates that are far lower than the statutory rate, and often in the single digits. Our rating Trump said Americas federal business tax rate is the highest in the world. The top corporate tax in the United States is 35 percent, highest among the worlds industrialized nations. But five smaller nations have the same rate and two smaller ones, United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, have rates above 35 percent. Also, the 35 percent U.S. rate is only the starting point, given that corporations can use exemptions and deductions to effectively reduce that rate and pay lower taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Amid national debates about income inequality and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, one talking point is frequently highlighted in online memes and by political figures such as Bernie Sanders is that online retailing giant Amazon.com, despite taking in $5.6 billion in profit in 2017, paid no federal corporate income taxes for that year: Bernie Sanders   (With respect to the claim about Amazon employees on welfare, see our fact check on that topic here.) here In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazons tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars): SEC filing   Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazons reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks:   The third negative item in the SEC filing, $789 million in reduced tax burden as a result of the 2017 Tax Act, will be applied to future tax years, according to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. report SEC filings do not require a company to list the specific credits they utilize, but there are several avenues Amazon would likely have pursued. Annette Nellen, a professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said that Amazons write-offs likely include credits for research and development, domestic production, and equipment depreciation. And according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon receives myriad tax incentives from state and local governments as well: said report The expansion of Amazons physical distribution network has coincided with a strategic business plan of negotiating millions in tax abatements, credits, exemptions, and infrastructure assistance from state and local governments in the name of regional economic development. By the end of 2016, Amazon had likely received over $1 billion in state and local subsidies for its facilities, which would include not only fulfillment centers but sortation centers that only sort packages, mailing centers, and other facilities. Publicly-traded corporations can list the stock options they grant to employees as a business cost in their accounting, and if an option-receiving employee makes over $1 million a year in salary, the profits from the sale of those stocks can be then counted as a federal income tax deduction for the corporation (primarily due to a Clinton-era compromise over how to cap executive pay). Stock options allow an employee to purchase stock in their employers company at a set price, regardless of its current market value: list Options give executives and investors the right to buy shares of a company at a later date and at specific prices. For example, if a chief executive joins a media company when its stock is trading at $55 a share, but years later, the share price has skyrocketed to $100, that chief executive can still buy the shares at $55, pocketing the massive difference. In the cases of their highest paid employees, Amazon and other companies are able to deduct the massive difference employees make when they sell that stock at a profit. According to the Center for Tax Justice, because companies typically low-ball the estimated values, they usually end up with much bigger tax write-offs than the amounts they deduct as a 'cost' in computing the profits they report to shareholders. The $917 million in stock-based compensation listed in Amazon's SEC filing likely stems from their top employees' cashing in on their stock options for a large profit. deduct While it is impossible to know the exact amount of money Amazon did or did not pay to the federal government in 2017, their own accounting suggests that they expected their federal corporate income tax burden to be negative that year.  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Amazon.com Inc. Form 10-K"
  2 February 2018.
 Gardner, Mathew.  "Amazon Inc. Paid Zero in Federal Taxes in 2017, Gets $789 Million Windfall from New Tax Law."
  Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.  13 February 2018.
 Tobias, Manuela.  "Bernie Sanders Says Amazon Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2017. He's Right."
  Politifact.  3 May 2018. 
 Jones, Janell and Ben Zipperer.  "Unfulfilled Promises."
  Economic Policy Institute.  1 February 2018. 
 Gunjan, Banerji.  "Potential Loser in Tax Overhaul: Executive Stock Options."
  The Wall Street Journal.  19 December 2017.
 Citizens for Tax Justice.  Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years."
  9 June 2016. On Feb. 16, 2024, the death of Russian President Vladimir Putin's most outspoken and formidable opponent, Alexei Navalny, was announced by the Russian prison service.The former lawyer was 47, and he was serving a 19-year prison sentence on charges of extremism in an isolated penal colony above the Arctic Circle. Vladimir Putin's The notice, released by the prison service of the Yamalo-Nenets region andtranslated from Russian by Reuters, read as follows: The notice translated from Russian by Reuters On Feb. 16, 2024, in penal colony number 3, convict Alexei Navalny felt unwell after a walk, almost immediately losing consciousness. The medical staff of the institution arrived immediately, and an ambulance team was called. All necessary resuscitation measures were carried out, which did not yield positive results. Doctors of the ambulance stated the death of the convict. The causes of death are being established. The notice indicated it was last updated at 2:19 p.m. Feb. 16. According to a Feb. 17 tweet by Navalny's spokesperson,Kira Yarmysh, he was "murdered" and the official time of his death was 2:17 p.m. Feb. 16, "according to the official message to Alexey's mother." Alexey Navalny was murdered. His death occurred on February 16 at 2:17 p.m. local time, according to the official message to Alexey's mother. An employee of the colony said that the body of Navalny is now in Salekhard. It was picked up by investigators from the IC. Now they are    (@Kira_Yarmysh) February 17, 2024 February 17, 2024  Ivan Zhdanov,the director of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, tweeted on Feb. 17 that when Navalny's lawyer and mother arrived at the colony, they were told that the cause of Navalny's death was "sudden death syndrome." tweeted on Feb. 17 On Feb. 19, Navalny's anti-corruption foundation posted an updatein which they reaffirm that his official time of death was 2:17, pictured below: an update  (Image via acf.international) The Kremlin has not been transparent in releasing more specific details the exact cause of Navalny's death; therefore, information surrounding the exact cause and time of Navalny's death cannot be absolutely confirmed without independent investigation. Because of this, we rate this claim as "Unproven." If more information surrounding the details of his death is confirmed, this story will be updated accordingly. Many world leaders  including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and U.S. President Joe Biden  publicly pointed to Putin as being behind Navalny's death. Navalny's wife, Yulia Navalnaya, spoke at the Munich Security Conference within hours of the announcement of her husband's death. In her speech, she stated that she did not know whether to believe the report of his death because"we cannot trust Putin and the Putin government. They always lie." U.S. President Joe Biden  Just one day beforethe announcement of his death, on Feb. 15, Navalny was seen in a video-link court hearing in which he joked with the judge about sending him money because he was running out of funds due to the judge's decisions. Just one day before  Alexei Navalny Appears Healthy in Video-Link Court Hearing on Day before His Death.www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGlH9WS5yI. Accessed 16 Feb. 2024. 'Alexey Navalny Timeline: From Poisoning to Prison to Death'.Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/16/hold-alexei-navalny-timeline-from-poisoning-to-prison. Accessed 16 Feb. 2024. Bayer, Lili. 'Yulia Navalnaya Takes Stage at Munich Meeting after News of Husband's Death'.The Guardian, 16 Feb. 2024.The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/yulia-navalnaya-munich-security-conference-navalny-putin. Faulconbridge, Guy, et al. 'Putin Foe Alexei Navalny Dies in Jail, West Holds Russia Responsible'.Reuters, 16 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/jailed-russian-opposition-leader-navalny-dead-prison-service-2024-02-16/. Guldbk, Karoline. 'Bekrefter ddsfall'.dagbladet.no, 17 Feb. 2024, https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/bekrefter-dodsfall/80992002. Henderson, Cameron, et al. 'Putin Is Responsible for Navalny's Death, Says Biden - Follow Latest'.The Telegraph, 16 Feb. 2024.www.telegraph.co.uk, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/16/russia-ukraine-zelensky-putin-war-latest-news5/. 'Https://Twitter.Com/Gerashchenko_en/Status/1758479753898504421?T=137'.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1758479753898504421?t=137. Accessed 16 Feb. 2024. 'Https://Twitter.Com/ioannZH/Status/1758831082500165791'.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/ioannZH/status/1758831082500165791. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. 'Https://Twitter.Com/Kira_Yarmysh/Status/1758801430125695199'.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Kira_Yarmysh/status/1758801430125695199. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. 'Kremlin Foe Alexei Navalny's Team Confirms His Death and Says His Mother Is Searching for His Body'.AP News, 17 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/russia-alexei-navalny-death-opposition-leader-37da0915157576372d6493be7ad04b5c. 'Navalny's Death: The Full Russian Prison Service Statement'.Reuters, 16 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-prison-service-statement-about-navalnys-death-2024-02-16/. 'Western Officials and Kremlin Critics Blame Putin and His Government for Navalny's Death in Prison'.AP News, 16 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/russia-navalny-death-global-reactions-putin-19e7fd6318763627f6917a92678cd190. 'World Leaders Blame Putin's Government in Russia for Death of Alexei Navalny'.PBS NewsHour, 16 Feb. 2024, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/world-leaders-blame-putins-government-in-russia-for-death-of-alexei-navalny.    -   . 16 Feb. 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20240216120742/https://89.fsin.gov.ru/news/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=729444. Feb. 20, 2024: This article was updated to include new information released by Navalny's team in the days following the announcement of his death.