Did Sean Spicer Tweet 'Today Is Dday' On Pearl Harbor Day?
On the morning of Dec. 7, 2022, former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer tweeted "Today is Dday. It only lives in infamy if we remember and share the story of sacrifice with the next generation."  Right off the bat, the tweet runs into shaky ground: For starters, Dec. 7 is not D-Day. Further, The historical allusion "lives in infamy" is misplaced when attributed to D-Day. not D-Day Dec. 7 is Pearl Harbor Day, which commemorates the Japanese attack on the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in 1941. In describing that attack, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously referred to Dec. 7 as "a date which will live in infamy in the United States of America." D-Day, the Allied invasion of Western Europe, occurred on June 6, 1944. describing Several accounts on Twitter shared screenshots of the tweet, which Spicer deleted after being corrected. His apology confirms he did send the tweet in question: screenshots apology  For that reason, the claim is True.  Home | D-Day | June 6, 1944 | The United States Army. https://www.army.mil/d-day/index.html. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. "Sorry. Apologies." Twitter, https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/1600528997342793730. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. "Speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, New York (Transcript)." Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, https://www.loc.gov/resource/afc1986022.afc1986022_ms2201/?st=text. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022.
A Florida House bill that would make school districts share capital funding with charter schools has sparked a debate over how much money the privately run institutions should get. A bill sponsored by Rep. Erik Fresen, R-Miami, would in part require that charter schools have access to local school board levies that are normally reserved for traditional public schools capital improvements. Charter schools are financed with taxpayer money but managed by private companies. Initially touted as an option for students attending low-performing public schools, charters have grown in popularity. Critics have complained that too many taxpayer dollars have subsequently been shifted to the private companies that run charters, while traditional schools suffer from a lack of resources. In aHouse Appropriations Committee hearingfor Fresen'sHB 873, Republicans supported equal access to capital improvement funds by charter schools. I think it is time that we recognize that there is great disparity, tremendous disparity, in the funding on a per-student basis between our traditional public schools and our charter public schools, said Rep. Janet Adkins, R-Fernandina Beach, at the Feb. 9 hearing. The bill hasdrawn some extra scrutinybecause Fresen works for an architecture firm that builds charter schools and his sister and brother-in-law are executives for the state's largest charter-school operator. The bill passed Appropriations 19-5 and on Feb. 17 passed the Education Committee, 13-4, both times along party lines. These votes move the bill to the House floor. The Legislature has argued about charter-school funding for years, and the subject is confusing, to say the least. We wanted to run the numbers to see if Adkins, acandidate for Nassau County Schools superintendent, is correct to say theres a tremendous disparity between charter and traditional schools. It turns out that while the figures arent so easy to decipher, it seems Adkins has a point. School funding 101 Florida has 4,270 public schools with around 2.7 million children enrolled and more coming every month. Those figures include some 650 charter schools across the state, with about 250,000 students. Charter-school enrollment has grown at least fivefold in the last decade. That means statewide, there are more than six traditional schools for every charter school. But since charter schools often have much smaller enrollments than their counterparts, traditional schools have almost 11 students for every one in a charter. Calculating school funding is confusing alchemy that mixes money from the state and local governments, including several kinds of tax revenues, grants and awards. Many of these sources are earmarked for specific things, like vocational-technical career centers and money to even out class sizes. For this fact-check, well focus on capital outlay costs, which are dollars set aside largely for construction and maintenance. Adkins confirmed to PolitiFact Florida she was referring specifically to those capital dollars, not operating funds. State money for operations is allocated annually by the Legislature on a per-pupil basis  around $7,100 per student  and given to school districts, which divide the money among charter and traditional public schools. (This is the cash Gov. Rick Scott likes to mentionwhen he talks about school funding.) Capital funding is a different story. Districtshave been under pressureto build schools as Floridas population grows, and a good chunk of the capital funding the state sets aside for schools is to pay down debts on projects theyve already completed. Many charter schools, however, lease the property they occupy instead of erect new buildings, so much of their capital funding goes to paying rent. Thats a controversial practice on its own, since districts areoften left without assets if a charter school closes. There areseveral sources for these capital dollars, but were going to look at the two most relevant sources: state Public Education Capital Outlay money and local school board levies. Split access As charter schools grew more popular, the Legislature gave them more of the state capital money, known as PECO, than it gave traditional schools  whichreceived nothing from that fund in some years. The totals have been in flux recently, but charter schools get vastly more PECO money than traditional schools on a per-student basis. Last year lawmakers gave $50 million to those 650 charter schools and $50 million to the other 3,600 traditional schools. That gives charter schools a bit more than $200 per student in PECO funding, while traditional schools get roughly $20 per student. The Legislature iscurrently debating how much to allocate for 2016-17. (As lawmakers head into budget negotiations, the House has proposed $90 million in capital funding for charter schools. The Senate has offered charters zero capital dollars. Both chambers would keep traditional schools capital outlay at $50 million.) But school boards have the power to add to their capital budgets in the form of levies. These levies can be up to 1.5 mills (thats $1.50 per $1,000 in taxable property values) on an annual property tax bill. Money from those local levies, however, is largely off limits to charters. State statute allows districts to share this money with charter schools, but only five districts do. Fresens bill would require school districts toshare a portion of this money with charters. Districts argue these local levies are needed to keep up with ever-growing communities. A common argument is that the districts have needed this money as the state has cut other sources of funding. Its important to remember that not every district levies these taxesat the same rate or brings in the same amount. But theres no denying its a huge pot of money to which charter schools dont have ready access. According to the Florida Department of Revenue, these levies created an annual pool of about $2.3 billion statewide in 2015. Traditional schools also receive an additional $850 million or so in dedicated capital funding along with their PECO money,a House comparison says. Charter schools Traditional schools PECO funding $50 million $50 million School board levies N/A* $2.3 billion Other state and local revenues N/A $850 million Total capital outlay funding $50 million $3.2 billion Full-time students 250,000 2.4 million Capital funding per student $200 $1,300 Sources: Florida Department of Education, Florida Department of Revenue, Florida House Appropriations Committee, Office of the Speaker of the House * Five counties share some levy funds with charters These figures are rounded estimates, of course, and we need to remember that traditional schools and charter schools face different challenges. It also doesnt include money from bonds that school districts can ask voters to approve. But using these estimates, we found that traditional schools have a more than 6 to 1 ratio of capital dollars than do charters. Wed consider that a pretty big disparity, regardless of the reasons behind the policies. Our ruling Adkins said, There is great disparity, tremendous disparity, in the (capital) funding on a per-student basis between our traditional public schools and our charter public schools. While charter schools do get a larger per-student share of one kind of state capital funding, traditional schools can bring in much more by taking advantage of school board levies and other sources that charters cant access. There are many fine details that can get lost in discussions about the subject. But we found that currently, traditional schools potentially can get six times the capital funding per pupil than charter schools can. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. In December 2014, a number of Facebook pages using car brand names such as Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, and Camaro (among others) posted directives similar to the messages quoted above. The pages claimed that Facebook was giving away cars. Among the cars offered in the giveaways were Audi R8s, Range Rovers, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMGs, and Chevrolet Camaro SS models. Almost all the scams followed the same format: they instructed users to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Timeline (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same).users were eligible to win one of two available vehicles in the winner's choice of color simply by liking a separate Facebook page, liking and sharing a post, and waiting for an inbox message confirming the winners. In April 2016, the scam reappeared, this time with a Range Rover as the car offered in the giveaway:    The first clue the giveaways following this format were not on the up-and-up was the pages to which Facebook users were directed, pages that had been created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only were the secondary Facebook pages involved always new, they were also not linked with car companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure; however, no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment was discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The tactics were similar to recent scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure price tag attached to some of the vehicles involved in the Facebook car giveaway posts proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, not all of whom questioned whether sharing a page presented any negative consequence should it later turn out to be a prank, hoax, or other false promise. Costco Kroger Amazon The pages to which users were directed carried all the hallmarks of "like farming" operations intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages. Even if the page creators' intent were only to build an audience, users' participating in the scam created a larger incentive for employing future fakery of the same description to crowd Facebook feeds. Scammers could also exploit a large audience by mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked a page of dubious origin. So Facebook users who participate in such fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers pollute the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are generally rare and almost always conducted through brands' official channels or the social media accounts of related large companies. Does the stock market boom under Democratic presidents? Hillary Clinton said so during a town hall in Nashua, N.H., on July 28, 2015. You know the evidence is pretty clear that under Democratic presidents, going a ways back, people do better, Clinton said,at around 5:30 in this video. And not only working people, middle class people. Even the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. We wondered: Is it true that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House? We took a closer look. Scrutinizing the stock ticker There have been a couple studies addressing this question, and they all agree: For whatever reason, going back more than a century, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. A2012 report by CMC Markets, an international financial firm, found that since 1900, the United States stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to just 5.43 percent under Republicans. Anotherstudyfrom 2012 by Adviser Perspectives newsletter, using somewhat different methodology, found that since 1900, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 8.7 percent annually under a Democratic president, compared to 5.7 percent under Republicans. AndcalculationsbyThe Economistfound that the Barclays U.S. equity index gained a cumulative 300 percent under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about zero under Republican presidents. To bring the data up to date, we checked in with Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York. He hadpreviously founda big Democratic advantage in stock market gains through 2012. From 1901 through July 31, 2015, Stovall found, the stock market gained 8.7 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to 5.3 percent under Republican presidents. The same pattern held in Stovalls data since the end of World War II  in fact, it was even more pronounced. Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2 percent under Democratic presidents and 6.3 percent under Republican presidents. And it wasnt just the stock market that chalked up better performance under Democratic presidents, according toa July 2014 paperby Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They found a performance gap between the parties that was startlingly large over a wide variety of economic metrics. The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,Blinder and Watson wrote. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. What does this mean? So, multiple studies show that Clintons claim is numerically correct. But what, if anything, can we conclude from it? Experts said its best not to go overboard in drawing conclusions about White House control and stock market performance. Here are some of the reasons why. A lot of this stems from luck and timing.Republicans are cursed by having Herbert Hoover on their presidential roster. The stock-market decline was so quick and deep under Hoover that it continues to hobble the partys stock-market performance all these decades later. Meanwhile, starting at such a low point was a huge help to his Democratic successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, if you remove Hoover from the GOP column, the average monthly return for Republicans improves significantly, from a 0.38 percent average monthly return to a 0.61 percent monthly return. The Hoover-free GOP number is within striking distance of the Democratic mark of 0.73 percent, said Lawrence J. White, a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. White doesnt argue that its fairest to remove Hoover from the GOPs calculation. Rather, he said, its a reminder that relatively small changes due at least in part to unlucky timing can have big effects on the end result. Partisan labels are only somewhat helpful.What matters is the relationship of policy to the stock market, not partisan labels, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic policy under Bill Clinton was far more market-oriented than it was under either Bush or Nixon. A good stock market is harder to define than one might think.For instance, a healthy year-over-year increase in the stock market may sound good, but if it comes with high volatility throughout the year, that can be a lot less pleasant for investors, said Tom Arnold, a professor of finance at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business. Meanwhile, down markets are buying opportunities and up markets are selling opportunities for the purpose of cashing in on profits, possibly from securities purchased in a down market, Arnold said. Better in one market is usually at the cost of another market. Market results dont align neatly with presidential terms.The stock market makes an anticipatory assessment of a president and his policies shortly after his election  or even before the election, White said. So the market's anticipation of what an incoming president will do occurs during the last few months of the incumbents presidency. He noted that this factor was even stronger prior to 1936, when the new president was inaugurated on March 4, leaving four months of stock market anticipation in the previous presidents column. A president is only one factor in determining stock market performance.Perhaps most important, experts urge caution in ascribing too much credit to a president for how the stock market performs on his watch. Often  including now, during a period of strong stock-market gains  Congress is held by the opposing party. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, which plays a crucial role in the economy by directing the nations monetary policy, operates independently once appointments are made by the president and confirmed by Congress. And a host of other factors that a president cant control, including technological advances and international economic trends, play a role as well. In their paper, Blinder and Watson focus on two factors as most important in determining economic performance. One is the presence or absence of an energy price shock -- something that, unfortunately for the GOP, hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The other factor they pointed to is what economists call total factor productivity,defined asthe portion of economic output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Think of it as the economys special sauce, or its extra bang for the buck. Although its unclear why, Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, most clearly during the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. Hillary Clintons campaign emphasized to PolitiFact that she didnt say that the president is the only factor that went into stock market results. Still, our experts agreed that while the numbers to back up her claim are clear, the meaning and significance of those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't place much weight on it, one way or the other, White said. Our ruling Clinton said that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. The numbers back her up, but its worth noting that luck, timing and several other factors in the broader economy also play a role in determining stock market performance. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Sen. Mark Warner is pitching a plan that would allow some Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled and apply the additional tax revenue toward business tax cuts and incentives to spur the economy.Laying out his plan in anOp-Ed in the Financial Times, Warner notes that a Republican-Democrat compromise is being considered by the Obama administration that would temporarily extend all the tax breaks for two more years.However, this latter approach has problems beyond the $65bn that would be added to the deficit if we keep the cuts for people on the highest incomes, Warner writes. In Washington such temporary benefits also have a strange way of becoming permanent.Since Warners own plan hinges on reapplying the $65 billion in additional tax revenue that would come from allowing the tax breaks for the wealthy to expire, we thought it prudent to check the figure.Asked for the source, Warners communication director Kevin Hall pointed to estimates by the U.S. Treasury.Those projections show that allowing the cuts to expire along with adjustments to the capital gains and dividends would amount to $74.4 billion over two years.Heres why we mention that factor: If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the top tax rate on long-term capital gains would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dividends, which are currently taxed at 15 percent, would be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income with a top rate of 39.9 percent.But if we look exclusively at allowing the Bush cuts to expire, its $62.5 billion for the two years.Hall said Warner excludes the capital gains and dividends change because they might not be enacted, and capital gains isnt really what people talk about when they say income taxes.Gerald Prante, senior economist with the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, disagreed on that point. He also  suggested looking at more recent figures from the Office of Management and Budget, noting that the Treasury numbers are based upon estimates that have since been revised.The OMB figures show that allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire would generate more than $66 billion in tax revenue over two years. But thats including the adjustment to the capital gains.Without it, the two-year total is closer to $57 billion.Its worth noting, however, that the numbers from both sources look at the revenue to be gained from repealing the tax cuts permanently as opposed to eliminating them after a two-year extension.If there was only a two-year extension, the cost may not be $66 billion as [the] Joint Committee on Taxation/Treasury would assume tax planning that could change the costs, moving income between years, noted Prante. But overall, Warner's claim is fine...the $65 billion figure is not an exaggeration.So, if we use the Treasurys numbers, and look exclusively at the tax revenue raised by the two years worth of repealed cuts for the wealthy, then Warner is very close.Using the more recent OMB figures, hed be nearer  by including the capital gains adjustment, but is still in the neighborhood.Accepting that pinpointing a number using evolving projections is not an exact science, we find Warners claim to be Mostly True. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. Although Canada has its share of Starbucks outlets, the local Tim Hortons is the destination of choice for the average Canadian in search of a quick pick-me-up. The coffee vended there is exceptional, but just as important, most of these shops are open 24 hours a day, making a stop at these donut emporiums a personal ritual that can fit into anyone's daily routine no matter what shift he might work. Tim Hortons is Canada's best-known coffee and fresh baked goods chain, established in 1964 and now boasting more than 3,400 stores across Canada and over 800 additional locations within the United States. The chain's reputation rests just as much upon its coffee as its baked goods, so coffee not sold within twenty minutes of its first being offered for sale is thrown out to ensure that patrons always get a fresh cup of java for their money. According to the President and C.O.O. of Tim Hortons, Paul House, the coffee's special appeal to consumers is the result of a superior blend and careful quality control: The Tim Hortons special blend of coffee has been closely guarded from the beginnings of the chain, and is subject to stringent quality assurance measures by a team of coffee experts located at the Tim Hortons head office in Oakville, Ontario. "We do extensive testing and cupping of our coffee to ensure the highest quality standards are met, and now our people can extend that quality right into the roasting process here in Rochester," said [Paul] House. "We start with the best possible arabica beans from various countries of the world to create our special blend, and can follow those beans right through the roasting and packaging processes." Because folks are willing to line up to purchase Tim Hortons coffee rather than secure their daily cup from another source, some people have begun looking for a more sinister explanation beyond the obvious one of "The coffee is really good, the donuts are fresh, and they're always open." The combination of reasonable prices, tasty product, and numerous convenient locations appears to have spawned a particular rumor that attempts to explain the popularity of Tim Hortons' coffee: according to the whispers, the beverage has been made so alluring through the addition of nicotine, MSG, or "the maximum amount of caffeine allowed by law." In one elaborate version of the rumor, a Tim Hortons patron suffers a puzzling and severe allergic reaction after drinking some of the chain's coffee; only under duress (and an insistence on absolute secrecy) does a Tim Hortons executive disclose to the treating doctor a list of the ingredients in their "special blend"  a list that reveals the presence of nicotine. Variants of the basic rumor assert it's not the coffee itself that's loaded with nicotine, but the chain's coffee filters or that nicotine has been sprayed on the inside of its disposable cups. MSG But Tim Hortons coffee does not include nicotine, MSG, an usually high level of caffeine, or any similar additives. Just as the USA has its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of commercially-sold ingestibles, so Canada has its Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Neither agency would permit the knowing inclusion of dangerous substances in a foodstuff vended to an unwary public. CFIA Nicotine is one of the most powerful poisons known. Though we normally think in terms of arsenic and strychnine when the term 'poison' comes up, the truth is that nicotine is far more deadly. The lethal dose of arsenic for a 150 pound adult is 200 mg., for strychnine 75 mg., but for nicotine only 60 mg. Nicotine can and does kill even in relatively small amounts. Those who wear nicotine patches must exercise great care about the disposal of their used patches lest children or pets come in contact with the seemingly "spent" aids and become deeply sickened or even possibly die. Not surprisingly, nicotine is not permitted as a food additive in either Canada or the U.S. As for MSG, although the FDA has designated the additive "generally recognized as safe," many people claim to experience adverse effects (such as headaches) after ingesting it, so all consumables containing the substance have to be clearly labelled to indicate its presence. The "nicotine additive" rumor does not adhere solely to Tim Hortons; it has been kited about other business concerns whose products have proved to be highly (and some would say inexplicably) popular: A friend mentioned that since 1987, McDonalds was putting nicotine into hamburgers to make them addictive. I heard that McDonald's experimented with putting nicotine in their fries to create an addictive property. I just received an email from a friend which claims that Pokemon cards are coated with nicotine, so children will become addicted. The letter claims that Philip Morris company is behind this. In another form the rumor has been known to take, evil-intentioned companies or heartless universities are said to be slipping laxatives into their food to lessen the effects of food poisoning: While at lunch with some friends yesterday, i heard what to me, sounds like a classic urban legend. Apparently there is a tale making the rounds that claims all fast food restaurants inject laxatives into their food so that people will pass the food on quickly, thereby reducing the risk of patrons getting food poisoning. Some of my students have told me something that sounds like an urban legend. They say that the dining service here (Lafayette College) is "required" to put a certain amount of laxatives in the food so that in case people get food poisoning the food will get out of people's systems. In yet another form of the basic rumor, conscienceless fast food companies have been incorporating anti-emetics into their offerings to help patrons keep their food down: In a recent debate with some friends of mine, we started talking about McDonald's and my friends kept telling me that McDonald's add an ingredient that prevents people from throwing up after eating there. A blow to the heart of the rumor in all its manifestations is that extraneous chemicals could not be surreptitiously slipped into any company's ingestible products without leaving that concern open to a stream of customer lawsuits. In the case of nicotine, the number of wrongful death suits filed would be unimaginable, given that it wouldn't take much of that particular poison to kill someone. As for MSG, caffeine, laxatives, or anti-emetics, there is no substance so innocuous that it won't provoke allergic or violent physical reactions in some people. Whatever small advantage a company might gain by adding a little extra something that would addict clients to its offerings would be quickly offset by multi-million dollar losses in civil court and a loss of consumer confidence in the even higher court of public opinion. Folks ain't going to patronize a place known for killing or sickening its customers, no matter how good the coffee. The Tim Hortons rumors reached such prominence that in February 2004 the CBC news program Disclosure conducted its own investigation, one which included having samples of coffee from Tim Hortons (and a couple of competing chains) sent to a laboratory for analysis. The results: Tim Hortons coffee contained no measurable amount of nicotine and had, on average, less caffeine than coffee from either Starbucks or Second Cup. nicotine caffeine Tim Hortons' loyal customer base was built the old-fashioned way: good product served fresh in easily-accessible locations. Additional information:     Tim Hortons web site      CBC Disclosure investigation      Tim Hortons statement Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won?  "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue:  The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016. Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013 In mid-May 2019, viral claims began to emerge on Facebook warning about XDR-TB, or extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, wreaking havoc at the Southern border. For example, a representative Facebook post asserted: post   As it turns out, these rumors are not driven by reality but by a company with a history of politically charged health misinformation selling a bogus natural health supplement. The claims made on Facebook mirror the claims made by an entity that calls itself the Institute for Natural Healing in a thinly sourced advertisement: advertisement: Let me describe how dire the current situation isbecause the Government is staying tight-lipped. Its known as the Mexican Blood Flu or its scientific name XDR-T. And you wouldnt wish the symptoms (internal bleeding, coughing up blood, seizures and even suffocation) on your worst enemy. For years it was seen as a third world problem, killing scores of people in the worlds poorest countries And a major outbreak within the U.S. was considered unthinkable. But heres the horrifying truth they dont want you to know a U.S. outbreak has already begun. And officials have no idea how to contain it. The first case was discovered in McAllen, Texas near the Mexican border. An illegal alien was detained by the U.S. Border Patrol suffering from a scorching fever and coughing up blood. The Institute for Natural Healing is a subsidiary of a publishing company known as Agora, Inc., which has a lengthy history of using misleading tactics and politically charged language to get people to purchase supplements, ebooks, or stock tips. Snopes has previously debunked Agora content that suggested Hillary Clinton was hiding a cure for cancer, and an Agora advertisement for a 74-dollar eBook explaining how to protect yourself from an alleged Klebsi plague set to ravage America. The founder of Agora once declared that our customers dont pay us to be right. subsidiary suggested advertisement declared In point of fact, the scientific name of the disease in question is not XDR-T, but XDR-TB, a disease categorization that is a step more serious than multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), MDR-TB is resistant to at least isoniazid (INH) and rifampin (RIF), while XDR-TB is resistant to INH and RIF, any fluoroquinolone, and at least three of the injectable second-line anti-TB drugs. Agora often uses made-up names for commonly known conditions or cures to make it harder for potential buyers of supplements or ebooks to research them on their own. CDC made-up Mexican blood flu is another made-up name, and its also a poorly chosen one from a truth standpoint. The McAllen, Texas, incident referenced in the Institute for Natural Healing's advertisement took place in 2013 and concerned a Nepalese man who had traveled through South Asia, Brazil, and Mexico before crossing illegally into Texas, as reported by the Wall Street Journal: reported In medical isolation in South Texas, 100 miles or so from Mexico's border, is a man who embodies one of U.S. health officials' greatest worries: He is the first person to cross and be held in detention while infected with one of the most severe types of drug-resistant tuberculosis known today ... The Nepalese man detained at the U.S. border carries a particularly deadly strainXDR, "extensively drug-resistant" TB. His TB is resistant to at least eight of the 15 or so standard drugs, according to a U.S. government description of the case reviewed by the Journal. His XDR strain has been seen only once before in the U.S., in another patient of Nepalese origin, according to the government description. The assertion that a U.S. outbreak has already begun is similarly incorrect: following the McCarren incident, the United States reported zero XDR-TB cases in 2014 and 2015. In 2016, one case was reported in the entire United States. In 2017, the most recent year for which CDC data is available, two cases were reported. According to CDC data, the percentage of TB cases that are drug resistant has remained stable for the last 20 years. one case two data The topic of multiple drug-resistant TB (not XDR-TB) at the Southern border was briefly revived in statements made by U.S. Rep. John Joyce, who in April 2019 participated in a fact-finding mission to the U.S.-Mexico border in Yuma, Arizona. During that trip, according to reporting by the Associated Press, Joyce said that there are 12 cases of multiple-drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis that had been identified in immigrants held in detention in Yuma, Arizona. reporting Yuma, Arizona officials later stated that this information was incorrect, although the person who made the claim to the politician stood by it, according to the Arizona Republic: according After a question from The Arizona Republic about a tuberculosis outbreak, Yuma County officials sought to set the record straight. "I can say, after confirming with the Yuma County Health District, there is no drug-resistant tuberculosis in Yuma County," said Kevin Tunell, a spokesman for the county. "Further, there are no cases of tuberculosis involving migrants in Yuma County at this time. All told, there is no basis for the claim that an XDR-TB outbreak is present at the Southern border. Belief in such a claim would require taking the word of a company that once sold a $74 eBook created to teach readers how to find an incredible cure for cancer hidden in the Book of Matthew, over the reports of health officials on the ground and health monitoring agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As such, we rank the claim false. once sold inhresearch.com.  Mexican Doomsday Virus Crosses U.S. Border."
  Archived on 16 May 2019. Sourcewatch.  Institute for Natural Healing."
  Accessed 17 May 2019. Murphy, Tim.  How This Company -- And Mike Huckabee -- Cashed in by Scaring Conservatives.
  Mother Jones.  November 2015. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Trends in Tuberculosis, 2017."
  Archived on 16 May 2019. McKay, Betsy.  Dangerous TB Patient Detained on U.S. Border.
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 March 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Trends in Tuberculosis, 2016."
  Archived on 14 October 2018. Hansen, Ronald J.  While Republicans Visited Yuma, A Bogus Tuberculosis Scare on the Border.
  The Arizona Republic.  23 April 2019. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign sent supporters fundraising emails saying poll workers were thrown out of rooms where elections officials were counting ballots in the presidential election. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Large numbers of poll watchers were thrown out of vote counting rooms in many key battleground states," claimed a Nov. 17 email obtained by Snopes.   Separately, the Trump campaign sent supporters another fundraising email that claimed Republican poll watchers were not "thrown out" but prohibited from entering ballot-processing rooms altogether, suggesting that the alleged lack of surveillance benefited President-elect Joe Biden. Joe Biden The best description of this situation is widespread, nationwide voter fraud, of which this is a part," Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, said of the alleged conspiracy by Democrats, without citing any evidence. Rudy Giulian Together, the emails and Giuliani's statement claimed that some unidentified person, or a group of people, ordered Republican poll workers to leave ballot-counting rooms, or to not enter them in the first place  essentially breaking laws that allow for poll observers to monitor the elections process on behalf of a political party or candidate. Before we unpack those allegations, let us explain about whom we're talking. whom Every state allows some form of "poll watching" or "election observing," by means of which political parties or candidates appoint volunteers to monitor polling sites for fairness on Election Day. Additionally, states train and certify nonpartisan poll watchers to keep an eye out for any voting issues. Rules governing both types of poll watching, especially to combat any voter harassment or intimidation, vary state by state, and apply to poll watchers regardless of their political affiliation. intimidation "State rules vary on who can be a poll watcher, how many are allowed at polling places or local elections offices, and how they must conduct themselves inside the office or precinct," according to The Associated Press. The Associated Press The Trump campaign alleged poll watchers were blocked from doing their jobs "in many key battleground states," though it did not, in its emails, pinpoint one or more locations where this supposedly occurred. Giuliani, however, claimed Democrats in cities including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix were behind the alleged conspiracy to undermine Trump's reelection. No poll watchers with the Democratic party raised issues with the 2020 election. For more details about the Trump campaign's allegations, we referred to the campaign's lawsuits challenging various aspects of the presidential election to determine where, exactly, the campaign believed citizen monitors were wrongfully kicked out of ballot-processing rooms. lawsuits At least two legal complaints in Pennsylvania and Michigan involved Republican poll watchers. However, on Nov. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled distancing regulations at polling sites were "reasonable" in that they allowed poll monitors to see what was happening, as prescribed by state law. (You can read that decision here.) The high court's ruling countered an earlier decision by a lower court that sided with the Trump campaign. here   Days before that decision, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond asked a Trump campaign lawyer during a court hearing if poll watchers were allowed in the room where election workers were processing mail-in ballots in Philadelphia. Theres a nonzero number of people in the room, campaign lawyer Jerome Marcus replied, acknowledging that Trump representatives were indeed present despite the campaign's messaging. Additionally, Republican poll watchers in Michigan's Wayne County filed a lawsuit alleging fraud during absentee ballot counting at a Detroit convention center. That litigation sought to halt the state's vote certification process. But two judges found no evidence to support the accusations and allowed the process of certifying votes to proceed, finalizing the state's voter tallies. finalizing the state's voter tallies Of separate lawsuits, The Associated Press reported: reported "Other lawsuits claimed poll watchers were temporarily denied access in some locations, but there has been no evidence to back it up. Nor was there evidence of votes being miscounted out of political bias. And most of the litigation alleging this has been dismissed." In other words, there was no evidence of any person or entity blocking poll watchers' access to polling sites on Election Day, no matter their presidential candidate of choice. Additionally, there were no reports of someone, or a group of people, "throwing out" poll observers from rooms to which election laws guarantee them the right, as of this report. Those conclusions do not eliminate the possibility that poll watchers at some (or many) sites across the country were asked to follow distancing guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and avoid distracting voters. However, there's no proof of such requests being part of a nefarious scheme to help Trump or Biden, or any political cause. COVID-19 We should note here: The emails about poll observers from Trump's campaign asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. Rather, people were giving their money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, where contributions are divided between Trump's committees and the Republican National Committee.  Brendan Fischer Republican National Committee "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, no evidence showed poll watchers were removed or prohibited from rooms were ballots were being counted in the Biden-Trump race, even though physical distancing rules may have affected the monitoring. In fact, one Republican lawyer representing Trump provided evidence to the contrary and acknowledged Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia were indeed allowed in ballot counting rooms. For those reasons, we rate this claim