Free Glasses for Kids at Target
Claim:  Target stores with optical departments are offering free eyeglasses to children 12 and under. WAS PARTLY Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] PLEASE PASS ON! THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITIESWHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPAIR OR PURCHASE GLASSES FOR CHILDREN. In case you have a child or know of someone who does (ages 12 and under),they can get a FREE pair of eyeglasses from Target: Target is doing a special promotion for their optical service. It couldend any time but will definitely end no later than April 29th. Children12 and under can get a free pair of glasses. They need to bring in a validprescription for glasses from their doctor and Target will let the childpick from about 40 different frames. They will place their best lenses inthe frames which are non-glare and scratch resistant and normally sell for$200.00. There are no income guidelines. Any child 12 or under iseligible. You can find stores with optical departments at www.target.com to confirmthey are participating before making a trip to their store. Please pass this information on to anyone who can benefit from thispromotional offer. If you know someone with lost or broken glasses pleaseshare this information with them ASAP, as the promotion could end at anytime.They would like families to come in as soon as they can. Origins:  Unfortunately, during troubled economic times ordinary (i.e., non-urgent) health care is one of the first things many families have to eliminate from their budgets  not just routine doctor visits, but also regular dental and optical checkups may go by the wayside, especially among families who have no insurance to cover such services. The claim that Target stores with optical departments are offering free eyeglasses (frames and lenses) to children 12 and under would therefore seem to be a  welcome announcement to many parents: It would mean they could get their children's existing eyeglasses replaced for free, and even if they had to pay for optical exams to obtain new or updated eye prescriptions for their children, they could rest assured that those prescriptions would be filled free at Target for children 12 and under. Sounds too good to be true?  That's what we thought, especially when we noted that the Optical section of Target's web site makes no mention of any such promotion. (They merely offer coupons for discounts on glasses, contacts, and premium lenses.)   Optical coupons So, we contacted Target's Customer Relations department to ask about this promotion and were told that they were offering such a deal, but only in a very limited sense.  The "free eyeglasses to children 12 and under" promotion was a pilot program currently available only in a few stores in select areas (e.g., Kansas City, Kansas).  However, that pilot program has now ended, as a Target Optical marketing manager communicated to us on 10 April 2009: Free Kids Eyeglasses Promotion At Target Optical, we believe strongly in our value, product and services and wanted to introduce Target Shoppers to the unique shopping experiencethat we offer.  So, to introduce more Target Shoppers to our stores, during the month of March we offered families a way to try Target Opticalfor free through our Free Kids Eyeglasses promotion. The Free Kids Eyeglasses promotion is now over.  It was a limited time offer in seven stores within the greater Kansas City area. We were pleasedto distribute over 1,000 pairs of free children's eyeglasses during this event. Last updated:  10 April 2009
FACT CHECK Did the Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly release Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.?   Claim: The Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly released Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.   : WHAT'S  Guantanamo detainee Abdul Shalabi was repatriated to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the day on which Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C. WHAT'S   Abdul Shalabi's release was sudden and unexpected, and it occurred under the radar of the news media due to coverage of the Pope's visit. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Rumor has it that while the pope was in DC that POTUS released Abdul Shalabi from Gitmo.   Did Obama really release Abdul Shalabi will everyone was watching the pope in DC? Origins:  Pope Francis' "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" that began on 22 September 2015 marked the pontiff's first visit to the U.S. On 24 September 2015, the web site of former one-term congressman and conservative political commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbait headline of "While the Media Obsessed Over the Pope, Look What Obama Just Did" that asserted: While Pope Francis was in Washington smooching with the president and giving speeches about global warming, income inequality and the evils of capitalism (while being ominously silent about the persecution and slaughter of his Christian brethren around the world), the Obama administration released Abdul Shalabi from the Guantanamo Bay detainment center. That Shalabi was released yesterday as the country was focused on Pope Francis arrival in the United States could well be the administration's most blatant "Look, over theresquirrell!!" [sic] moment ever. The very idea that this man who worked side-by-side with Osama bin Laden can somehow be "rehabilitated" to no longer want to kill infidels, and, be rehabbed by the Muslim government of an Islamic nation  is beyond laughable. What does Obama think hes going to do there now, train to become a valet? Take up needlepoint? Oh, I know, maybe open a bakery and make cakes for gay weddings. The excerpt quoted above suggests that Shalabi's release was unexpected and deliberately coordinated so as to go unnoticed during media coverage of Pope Francis' arrival in Washington D.C. However, Shalabi's release was neither unexpected, nor was it ignored by the media. A widely-reproduced Associated Press article published three months earlier had announced that Shalabi, who had been on a nine-year hunger strike, had been approved for release from Guantanamo by a government review board: article A prisoner who has been on a nine-year hunger strike to protest his confinement at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can now return to his native Saudi Arabia, a government review board said. The Periodic Review Board, which has been re-evaluating dozens of Guantanamo prisoners previously deemed too dangerous to release, said in a statement published on its website that Abdul Rahman Shalabi can be released to take part in a Saudi government rehabilitation program for militants and would be subject to monitoring afterward. Shalabi began a hunger strike in 2005. He and another prisoner, who since has been released, maintained the protest longer than any others held at the base. Court records show Shalabi occasionally consumed food but also dropped to as little as 101 pounds (46 kilograms). His lawyer told the review board in April [2015] that prison officials had fed him with a nasogastric tube daily for nine years. The U.S. now holds 116 men at Guantanamo, including 52 cleared for transfer or release. Similarly, an 8 August 2015 New York Post article reported that Shalabi was due to be released soon (partly to care for his mother): article Take detainee Abdul Shalabi. His lawyers in June pleaded that the former bin Laden bodyguard was sufficiently reformed and wanted only to reunite with his family in Saudi Arabia and take care of his ailing mother. The board subsequently agreed Shalabi was no longer a significant threat to the security of the United States, and rubber-stamped his release  even though the al Qaeda operative conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while plotting the 9/11 attacks from Karachi, Pakistan. Shalabi also was said to have trained at al Qaeda camps to participate in a suicide attack or deployment to the West. The UK newspaper The Guardian also reported on Shalabi's then-pending release on 13 August 2015, and the claim that "the media" ignored Shalabi's release in favor of Papal visit coverage conflicted with the 22 September 2015 publication in the New York Times of an article reporting that: reported Although a six-agency task force decided in 2009 that Mr. Shalabi was too dangerous to release, a parolelike panel called the Periodic Review Board, consisting of representatives from the same six agencies, decided in June [2015] that he could now be safely repatriated to Saudi Arabia. In a statement explaining its reasoning, the board said Mr. Shalabi had terrorist-related activities and connections in the past, but said it was confident that the Saudi governments rehabilitation program and its ability to monitor former detainees would mitigate the risks. The board also cited the fact that Mr. Shalabis nephew, who was repatriated from Guantnamo in President George W. Bushs second term and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program, has apparently lived quietly ever since. Mr. Shalabi appeared before the board at a hearing in April [2015]. He asked that his statements not be made public. But a lawyer helping to represent him, Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, told the board that he just wanted to settle down, get married and have a family of his own, and put the past behind him. The New York Times wasn't the only high-profile U.S. news outlet to cover Shalabi's release, as a 22 September 2015 Reuters piece also announced the imminent transfer of Shalabi to Saudi Arabia. piece As noted above, it was a review board comprising officials from several different military, legal, and intelligence agencies who recommended Shalabi's repatriation to Saudi Arabia, as explained on the Department of Defense Periodic Review Secretariat's web site: explained The Periodic Review Board (PRB) is a body comprised of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that will review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  Articles published three months in advance of Shalabi's repatriation acknowledged that (despite his never having been charged with a crime) he had links to Osama bin Laden al-Qaida and had "not been cleared of wrongdoing": Shalabi, 39, was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo in January 2002. He was never charged with a crime but the government said he had been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and had links to the external operations chief for al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo. The board, which was created by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2011 as part of the effort to close the prison at Guantanamo, did not clear Shalabi of wrongdoing and said it "acknowledges the detainees past terrorist-related activities." So while it's true that Abdul Shalabi was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the formal decision to do so was made well in advance of the Pope's September 2015 visit to the U.S., and news of Shalabi's hearing, review, and release was reported by major news outlets (inside and outside the United States) both before and during the event.  Last updated: 25 September 2015 First published:  25 September 2015 For years, retail company Bath & Body Works has made headlines for its generous return policy. On Sept. 17, 2021, social media user Kristen Peden appeared to take advantage of that policy when she claimed in a series of Facebook posts that she exchanged three used items, including one used candle, at a Tennessee Bath & Body Works for new items. At the time of this writing, the post had garnered 90,000 shares. posts    Questions surrounding the policy have made social media rounds since at least 2018, and appeared in coverage by publications like The List and was posted to Reddit in 2019: The List posted 2019 "Is it true that you can return used candles and swap them out for new ones? Ir is it a YMMV [your mileage may vary] situation" Most of the reports claimed that if a customer keeps the receipt, they can return anything for any reason. And even without the receipt, customers could expect to receive store credit at the very least. At Bath & Body Works, you can return anything you buy, at anytime, for any reason. If you have your receipt, you may get a refund. If you don't, you'll likely get store credit, wrote Good Housekeeping in 2018. But does that apply to used items? Likely not. A look at the Bath & Body Works return policy showed that an empty product cannot be return solely on the grounds that it has been used. We just want you to love it! Return anything, anytime for any reason. 100% Guaranteed, wrote the company. If at any time you're not completely satisfied with the quality of our products, you may return them to any of our Bath & Body Works or White Barn Stores in the US for a full refund, subject to the terms of our Return Policy. wrote In a subsequent post, Peden corrected the post to note that the warranty extended to ANY EMPTY CONTAINER FROM THIS STORE. PERFUMES SOAPS LOTION CANDLES!!!! An update posted the same day said that she had gone to the store in question with her mother and successfully exchanged several items. subsequent post  In the above post, Peden shared a photo of what appears to be Pedens receipt (number 81217003463409172021) that showed three items returned without their original receipt and exchanged for three differently named items, including a candle, of the same value. The location listed on the receipt was for a store located at 373 W. Jackson Street in Cookeville, Tennessee. photo receipt  Screengrab/Facebook  Facebook Snopes sent the receipt to Bath & Body Works, and a company spokesperson confirmed that the customer returned a body cream, a fine fragrance mist, and a candle and received the same items in return. They were not able to determine whether any of the products had been used, but did refer our team to a return policy that noted Bath & Body Works only accepts products that do not perform properly. noted Our return policy is intended to help customers who have issues that are related to poor product performance or unsatisfactory customer experience and is not intended to be taken advantage of when a product performs as expected. If a product has been fully used, it would seem that it has met its performance expectations, read the policy. While it is true that Peden returned three items to a Bath & Body Works location in Tennessee in exchange for three items of equal value, we were unable to confirm whether that one candle exchanged was actually completely used. Snopes followed up with the company to further confirm the condition of the exchanged items but until we hear back, we have rated this claim Unproven. On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015. In remarks from the Senate floor, newly elevated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested that his partys takeover of Senate control appears to coincide with recent good economic news. After so many years of sluggish growth, were finally starting to see some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope, McConnell said. The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administrations long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress. McConnell stopped short of saying the Republican Senate takeover actuallycausedan economic improvement, though manymediaobserversassumedthat was what he was trying to imply. In the liberalNew Republic, Brian Beutlerjoked,It absolutelydoescoincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Relatedly, things that coincide are called coincidences. But is McConnell even right that the economic data and the political expectations coincided? We focused on two questions. First, when did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually solidify? And second, was there an uptick in economic data that actually coincided with that time frame? Well also briefly address the question of causation, even though McConnell didnt explicitly claim that. The data we found suggest McConnell is engaging in some wishful thinking. When did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually emerge? To answer this question, we checked with political analysts who handicapped the 2014 battle for the Senate and also looked at poll-based forecasting models. McConnell said expectation, a stronger word than possibility and one that requires a reasonable degree of consensus. Going into the 2014 Senate elections, most observers expected the GOP to gain seats, due primarily to a favorable map for the GOP (far more Democrats were up for re-election, especially in conservative states) combined with the longstanding history of six-year-itch midterm elections bedeviling second-term presidents, in this case Democrat Barack Obama. But whether the GOP would actually manage to win enough seats to seize control of the chamber -- six -- was less certain. Going into the election, the Democrats held a 55-45 edge (counting two Democratic-caucusing Independents as Democrats). With many individual races rated as highly competitive right through Election Day, winning a net six seats was no slam dunk. Jennifer Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said different political experts settled on a Republican takeover at different times but added that she felt pretty comfortable with a gain of six seats around Labor Day, which was on Sept. 1 last year. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, agreed that Labor Day was a turning point, though he added that there were slivers of doubt right up until the end. We formally called the Senate for the Republicans the week before the election, but we also suggested that a GOP Senate was likely in the months prior to the election. The forecasters atfivethirtyeight.comsuggested the toss-up lasted past Labor Day. They calculated the likelihood of a GOP takeover at just over 50 percent as late as mid September, before rising again, ultimately to 76 percent on the eve of the election. TheNew York Times in-house forecast saw much the same pattern, narrowing to essentially a coin flip in mid September before climbing to a 75 percent chance of a GOP takeover by Election Day. All told, this suggests that an expectation of a GOP takeover didnt emerge until the beginning of September at the earliest, and possibly as late as the second half of September. This leads to our next question. Has there been an economic uptick that appears to coincide with this timeline? McConnells office pointed us to the announcement that the economy grew at an annualized 5 percent rate in the third quarter of 2014, the biggestexpansionin more than a decade. So well start there. Thefigurewas indeed impressive. But there are two problems with citing this as evidence for McConnells point. First, the third quarter covers July, August and September. So the bulk of this growth occurred before the expectation of a GOP Senate began to jell. Second, GDP growth for thesecondquarter -- covering April, May and June of 2014 -- was almost as impressive, 4.6 percent. And that was well before the expectation of a GOP takeover seemed to take hold. (In fact, for much of that quarter, theNew York Timesmodel showed the Democrats likelier to win control than the Republicans.) Indeed, the longer-term trend for GDP growth shows that three of the past five quarters -- that is, since mid 2013 -- have exceeded 4 percent growth, and another quarter came close to that. Only one quarter, the first quarter of 2014, was a dud. So its not as if the impressive third-quarter growth of 2014 came totally out of the blue. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis We also looked at another major yardstick for the economy -- the monthly change in employment. During 2014,total monthly employment gainsaveraged 241,000. In October -- the month after the expectation of a GOP takeover would have taken hold -- the gain was almost exactly that, 243,000. The November total was 321,000 -- the highest of the year, but not far out of line when compared with the general trend for job creation since early 2011 (see chart below). Its too soon to tell whether Novembers figure kicks off a new, higher threshold or whether the number settles back again into the 240,000 range. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The strongest evidence for McConnells point is consumer confidence. TheUniversity of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentimentdid experience an uptick between November and December, but even with this measurement, confidence had been rising consistently since July. And other evidence actually points in the opposite direction. Data fornew orders of capital goods-- a good statistic for gauging how much confidence there is in future economic conditions -- actually fell every month between August and November. The question of causation Even if the statistical timeline fit perfectly, its worth remembering that correlation does not equal causation. I don't think that either party has that much power to affect short-run economic movements, except by royally screwing up, and I haven't seen any evidence that theexpectationof a regime change of this sort would affect economic outcomes, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. Its even possible to draw up a theory that runs the opposite direction as McConnells linkage. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, said one reason GDP and employment have increased a bit faster in recent months is that government investment, government consumption, and public employee payrolls have recently been rising instead of falling. Given this, McConnells comments linking the GOP and accelerated economic growth are ironic, Burtless said, since Republicans have been at the forefront of cutting government spending and payrolls. Our ruling McConnell said a recent economic uptick appears to coincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Even leaving aside the question of causation, key statistics show that the economic recovery was under way well before September, which is our best estimate for when the expectation of a GOP Senate solidified. We rate the statement False. Help fund PolitiFact's Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 On 4 June 2019, Yahoo! Finance reported that as a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) enacted by the Trump administration, "the IRS pulled in an additional $93 billion for 2018 from taxpayers on individual income taxes than it did for 2017." With the tax law being a hot partisan topic, many readers who saw the headline online asked us whether it was true. reported In that article, Yahoo! Finance reported: The IRS collected $1.97 trillion in gross collections (the amount before refunds) for 2018. That figure stood at roughly $1.87 trillion for 2017. Refunds did increase this year  but not by much. The IRS refunded about $398 billion to taxpayers for 2018. For 2017, it was roughly $386 billion. And after refunds, the IRS collected about $93 billion more from individual American taxpayers than it did in 2017. Interestingly, that number stands close to the tax break amount that corporations received from the TCJA in 2018. Last year, big businesses paid $91 billion less in taxes than they had in 2017, prior to the new laws passage. The numbers reported by Yahoo! Finance are accurate, cited from figures published by the IRS in its 2018 Data Book. Collections data for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 can be viewed in the following table, while 2017 refund data can be downloaded by clicking  here: Data Book here   However, it's still too early to tease out the long-term effects of the new tax law from 2018 data, according to Matthew Gardner, senior fellow and corporate tax expert at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-partisan nonprofit organization that researches tax policy. Republicans had wanted to tell the story about new tax cuts fueling economic growth that would offset lost revenue, while Democrats had been eager to frame the new law as a gift to the country's wealthiest individuals and large corporations at the expense of average Americans. As Yahoo! finance reporter Kristin Myer pointed out on the news outlet's show "The First Trade," it appeared that taxpayers had "filled the gap" left by corporate tax cuts in 2018. "I would absolutely agree that if you look at the tax bill as written, unambiguously this is a shift away from taxing corporations toward taxing individuals," Gardner said. Gardner is a critic of TCJA because it cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent without fixing loopholes that corporations have long exploited. "We needed corporate tax reform, and we didnt get it. We just got corporate tax cuts," Gardner told us. However, irregularities that occurred in both fiscal years 2017 and 2018 can paint a misleading picture of the long-term impact of the TCJA. Among others reasons, 2017 tax filings were artificially depressed because the IRS granted filing extensions to victims of natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Conversely, filings were up in 2018 when those delayed tax returns were finally submitted. extensions Furthermore, the law went into effect on 1 January 2018, meaning it wasn't in force for the entirety of the fiscal year, which starts in October. "I wouldn't take these fiscal year 18 data very seriously as an indicator of what the tax cuts are doing in any sense," Gardner said. "No one should expect to fully see those effects emerge in the 2018 fiscal year. We have to wait until next year to really get a look at the impact on collections." Politicians on both sides of the aisle were anxious to see how the new law would affect tax refunds because, as Bloomberg reported, "Getting a tax refund is a springtime tradition that Americans love as much as Easter candy." And as Yahoo! observed, "In the end, many Americans saw modest increases in their paychecks throughout the year, but didnt notice. Instead, as people filed, many bemoaned getting smaller-than-anticipated refunds or even being hit with a 'surprise' tax bill." didnt notice 'surprise' tax bill Democratic lawmakers seized on the lower refunds, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) stating, according to Yahoo!, that "Many Americans depend on their tax refund to pay bills and make ends meet, but this tax season, working families will see smaller than expected returns and surprise tax bills -- because the Trump administration used smoke and mirrors in a shallow attempt to exaggerate the impact of their tax law on middle class families for political reasons." Myers, Kristin.  "American Taxpayers Paid Over $90 Billion More Under Trump Tax Law."
  Yahoo! Finance.  4 June 2019. Davison, Laura.  "Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trumps Signature Law."
  Bloomberg.  15 March 2019. Lee, Jasmine C. and Sara Simon.  "How Every Senator Voted on the Tax Bill."
  The New York Times.  19 December 2017. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.      : Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014 Claim:  E-mail reproduces interview with documentary filmmaker Pierre Rehov about the psychology of terrorism. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] The Psychology Behind Suicide Bombings By Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker On July 15, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based oninterviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.  Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film? A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up. Q - Why is this film especially important? A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude. Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil.  Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution. Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what theybelieve to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy. Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They thereforeexperience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.  Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise. Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderateMuslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of theProphecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists. Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior. Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations throughdifferent networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel). Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide. Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men? A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman? Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a dooropen by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. hasmaintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred"). Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean. A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it. Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Naziism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people. Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East? A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Origins:  Pierre Rehov is an Algerian-born filmmaker (his family left Algeria for France in 1961, when he was nine years old) who has Pierre Rehov  produced a number of documentaries about the Middle East, primarily focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In the wake of the 7 July 2005 terrorist bombings in London, he made a number of appearances on television news programs to discuss the causes and nature of terrorism and his experiences in producing films about the subject.  Those appearances included a 15 July 2005 interview for MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, the text of which is reproduced above. documentaries bombings appearances Connected We haven't yet been able to obtain a transcript of the 15 July 2005 Connected program, so we can't guarantee that what is reproduced above is a 100% complete and accurate reproduction of Pierre Rehov's interview.  However, we have verified that he was interviewed on Connected that day, that the substance of his remarks matched what is contained in the e-mail quoted at the head of this page, and that he offered substantially similar comments on other news programs around the same time as his Connected appearance. comments Last updated:  17 August 2006    Sources:   CNN Live Saturday.   "The Psychology of a Suicide Bomber."   CNN.com.  23 July 2005. In the days following the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6. 2021, several lawmakers started calling for U.S. President Donald Trump to be impeached for a second time, this time, according to one draft of the impeachment articles, for "incitement of insurrection." one draft of the impeachment articles As the momentum for impeachment built, some social media users argued that it wasn't worth impeaching Trump again as he would be leaving office in a few days regardless.  But according to a viral message from Twitter user @BenCostiloe, the potential consequences of impeachment extended further than removal from office. This message, which was shared more than 150,000 times, claimed that impeaching Trump would also strip him of several post-presidency benefits, such as a lifetime pension, security detail, and the ability to run for office in the future: viral message   This message is generally accurate. However, it should be noted that a president is only stripped of these benefits if they are impeached and removed from office. As of this writing, Trump, who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2019, will still receive presidential benefits as he was not convicted by the Senate and removed from office. U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, still receives the benefits bestowed on former presidents even though he, too, was impeached.  impeached The benefits a president receives after leaving office are outlined in the Former Presidents Act of 1958. That law states that former presidents shall receive a lifetime pension (of approximately $200,000 annually), travel-related expenses up to $1 million each fiscal year, and protection from the Secret Service. It also notes that these benefits shall not be awarded to presidents whose service was terminated by removal "pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America." Former Presidents Act approximately $200,000 annually) Article II of Section 4 of the Constitution, reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." reads Mother Jones reported: reported The 1958 Former Presidents Act assures that no president leaves office without being set for lifeit guarantees a pension, access to health insurance, office space and staff. There is, however, one exception: These perks are only granted to presidents who arent removed from office in an impeachment trial. There is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose protection from the Secret Service. The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 authorizes "the Secret Service to protect former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes." This act does not state any exceptions for an impeached and removed president. As this is ahistorical territory, it's unclear how the term "former president" would be interpreted in this instance. We reached out to various historians for comment and will update this article accordingly. Former Presidents Protection Act The final item listed in the viral tweet  "loses his ability to run in 2024"  is a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion in the case of an impeachment conviction in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that a president "shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted. However, it is up to the Senate's judgment as to whether a removed president should be barred from holding future office.  Here's an excerpt from the U.S. Senate website (emphasis ours): website In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called managers, acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office. In short, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, he would lose many of the benefits awarded to former presidents.    Updated [13 January 2021]: Article update to note that there is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose secret service protection. On Oct. 10, 2022, a paid ad on Facebook promoted a fake investment opportunity with the words, "How To Buy SpaceX Stock Before It Goes Public." The ad showed a picture of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and directed users to chat with a person on Messenger, who then told users to visit a WhatsApp group chat named "Stock Learning Group 28." But none of this was legitimate. It was all a scam to steal users' money. Stock Learning Group 28  The full scam post that promised a way to "buy SpaceX stock before it goes public" read as follows: Bullish on the future of space travel? See how to invest in SpaceX before it goes Public! We help you pre-buy stocks in the latest up-and-coming companies, before most retail investors. Getting in on the best companies before they go public is how you can get the returns like recent IPOs such as: AirBnB - 130% return in 7 months.Palantir - 226% return in 10 months.Snowflake - 331% return in 10 months. We do one thing very well... ...get you access to the most popular companies before the public market has a chance. Click the Learn More button now and well show you how to invest in SpaceX before the public  This post appeared to follow the same playbook we had seen before with numerous crypto scams. In those scams, users were also led from one social media platform to another, where they were told that their money would be invested in a special crypto opportunity. However, it was all a lie. Just like the scam post about SpaceX, some of the crypto scams featured photos of Musk as a way of trying to create trust. crypto scams featured photos of Musk The Facebook account that hosted the ads showed up as a personal profile and not a page. It was named Tut Pro 1 38801324. The profile picture showed an image that said "Half Price Books," a company that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam. We asked the account about the strange profile photo. They responded, "This event is sponsored by Mr. Nino, a senior stock analyst. Join Mr. Nino's stock research group now and receive a stock book when you join the group." The crypto scams we covered in the past also claimed to feature a specialist who could help deliver on the scam's promise. In the crypto scams, the scammers called this person "the teacher." We asked the user if this "Mr. Nino" was "the teacher." The account responded, "Yes." If the strange account name weren't enough of a red flag, the profile also once featured two seemingly random pictures of young girls. According to TinEye.com, a handy reverse image search website, at least one of the photos was traced to websites that were managed in Vietnam. This may have indicated that the scam was being operated from Southeast Asia. TinEye.com reverse image search As for the reality of SpaceX going public in the future, CNBC previously reported that Musk told employees the company was not likely to go public until 2025 or later. reported Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes.com, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Sheetz, Michael. Elon Musk Says an IPO of SpaceXs Starlink Satellite Internet Business Is Still 3 or 4 Years Away. CNBC, 7 June 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/spacex-starlink-ipo-elon-musk-says-offering-is-3-or-4-years-away.html. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. Tut Pro 1 38801324. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100084130714561. On Oct. 18, 2022, we added a note that said a real company named Half Price Books had nothing to do with the scam.