Does Photo Show Trump Arriving in New York for His Arraignment?
On April 3, 2023, former U.S. President Donald Trump traveled from his Mar-a-Lago estate to New York City to face historic criminal charges related to alleged hush-money payments to a woman with whom he allegedly had a sexual encounter. face historic criminal charges alleged hush-money payments With his booking andarraignment set for the following afternoon at the Manhattan criminal courthouse, a Twitter user posted the below-displayed photo of the former president supposedly making his New York arrival.The photo showed Trump flanked by people in suits, presumably Secret Service agents, leading a massive crowd of people down a city street lined with American flags. following afternoon "President Trump returns to New York," tweeted @Brick_Suit, with the photo. tweeted  The photo was fake; it was not a genuinedocumentationof Trump arriving to New York for his booking and arraignment. The Twitter user acknowledged that fact,writing in a reply tweet, "I didn't find this [photo]. I generated it via prompts." writing in a reply tweet The photo was generated by artificial intelligence (AI), with several telltale signs of computer-generated manipulation. For examples, an area near Trump's lower lip showed another trace of lip; the faces of the presumed Secret Service agents and many crowd members were disfigured; some heads looked more like skulls, and the flags' coloring wasn't consistent. Additionally, the man immediately behind Trump not only had signs of digital doctoring in his face but also his right hand. This was not the first digitally created photo supposedly documenting the aftermath of theManhattan District Attorney Office's move toindict Trump on March 30, 2023. Fakephotos of U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris celebrating the indictment, Trump clashing with law enforcement officers who were supposedly makinghis arrest, and the former president posing forhisjail mugshotalsospread on social media. indict Trump photos clashing his arrest jail mugshot Given that the photo of Trump leading a crowd was AI-generated  it did not authentically show him arriving in New York on April 3, 2023  we rate this claim  Getty Image's database of photojournalism included several authentic images of Trump's arrival to New York on April 3, including the one displayed below. database Trump arrived in New York City on April 3, 2023 for his arraignment. (Gotham/GettyImages) "Trump Is Heading to Court. Here's What to Expect." AP NEWS, 4 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-arrest-indictment-hush-money-97caa163d876d8c9ac2aad7ca6fd1f3d. "Trump Returns to New York to Face Historic Criminal Charges." AP NEWS, 3 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-new-york-florida-hush-money-election-764309dce49f81a50bf9f610ffd5ceb6.
The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback In late 2023 and into 2024, as the Israel-Hamas conflict continued, a number of social media posts highlighted U.S. President Joe Bidens longtime support of Israel. Many such posts sought to criticize him for that support as the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by Israeli bombardment approached more than 27,000. posts criticize killed The posts included an old video clip of then-U.S. Sen. Biden from 1986 in which he allegedly said, [Supporting Israel] is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region. (Screenshot via X) Biden indeed said the above words, in the context of opposing an arms sale to Saudi Arabia. He argued that sending weapons to that country would compromise Israel's security. Biden was arguing during a Senate debate for overriding a presidential veto pertaining to arms sales in Saudi Arabia. In May 1986, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan had vetoed a congressional resolution that sought to block his request to sell advanced missiles to Saudi Arabia. May 1986 Biden supported the prohibition of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and called on the Senate to override Reagans veto because it would put Saudi Arabia in the position of having to support their Arab brethren against Israel. The quote in question emerged at the end of Bidens statement, transcribed below. supported Around three hours' worth of the Senate debate, including Bidens full statement, is available for viewing on C-SPAN. We transcribed sections of Bidens speech below (emphasis, ours): C-SPAN Quite frankly, the Saudis are an 80-member family oligarchy that finds themselves adrift in the midst of an Islamic revolution, the consequences of which they do not comprehend any more than we [...] the government of Saudi Arabia, is the anachronism of the 20th century in the Middle East, and the fact of the matter is [...] the Saudis have no choice but to fund the PLO. The Saudis have no choice but to be supportive of their Arab brethren. The Saudis have no choice but to do that for in fact, about 55,000 Palestinians control the infrastructure of Saudi Arabia. They literally have their hands on the spigots [...] that control the oil. And so I would suggest to my colleagues we should not be viewing this so much in terms of whether or not the Saudis are good guys or bad guys. We should view it in terms of what is realistic. Madam President, it is this senator's opinion that it is totally unrealistic to expect the Saudiswith or without our help in terms of arms salesto do anything other than maintain a policy which they have had, which is one that is not particularly helpful to our interest. And furthermore, I would suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that we're doing a disservice to Saudi Arabia. [...] For I believe the Saudis do not want to have a war with Israel. But I believe once we send their arsenal soaring in terms of sophisticated weapons, they will be put in the untenable position the next time there is a conflict in the region, of having to get directly involved, of having to move with their Arab brethren. For if they don't, they will be moved. Biden went on to argue that the U.S. should support Saudi Arabia through other means, including helping its internal security, and concluded by saying Israel could not afford to have an unstable Saudi Arabia either (emphasis, ours): argue We do not have a Middle East foreign policy at this moment and to suggest that we are going to substitute an arms sales package for a policy in the name of trying to suggest that this is a litmus test once again. I've been here 14 years. I'm tired of being subjected to a litmus test by the Saudis. Litmus test by anyone else. We should operate and move in what is the naked self interest of the United States of America. And if we wish to help the Saudis, what we should be doing for Saudi Arabia is helping them with their infrastructure as it relates to their domestic security requirements. [...] We should be dealing with their ability to protect their own internal security from within. [...] if we look at the Middle East, I think it's about time we stopped those of us who supportas most of us doIsrael in this body, for apologizing for our support for Israel. There's no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.  In June 1986, the Senate voted to uphold Reagans veto with a narrow margin of a single vote. However, opponents of the arms sale also claimed a victory because the overall package of sales was reduced significantly. uphold claimed This was not the only time Biden used such language to describe his support for Israel. In 2020, Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed a 1986 document detailing Biden's meeting with Israel's ambassador in Washington, D.C. In the meeting, Biden was thanked for supporting aid to Israel, to which Biden reportedly said, Thats our best investment, where we get the biggest bang for our buck." Haaretz Levinson, Chaim. Rare 1986 Document Reveals Bidens Views on Israel and Saudi Arabia. Haaretz, 28 Dec. 2020. Haaretz, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-12-28/ty-article/rare-1986-document-reveals-bidens-views-on-israel-and-saudi-arabia/0000017f-f2ca-d8a1-a5ff-f2ca769b0000.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. Osgood, Brian and Linah Alsaafin, Tamila Varshalomidze. UN: 300k in North Gaza at Risk of Famine as Israel Continues to Block Aid. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/8/israels-war-on-gaza-live-us-says-space-for-truce-deal-israel-vows-war.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. Roberts, Steven V. PRESIDENT VETOES EFFORT TO BLOCK ARMS FOR SAUDIS. The New York Times, 22 May 1986. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/22/world/president-vetoes-effort-to-block-arms-for-saudis.html.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. "Senate Session." June 5, 1986 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?45851-1/senate-session. Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. In November 2013, South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon unveiled his concept for a "Portal Oxygen Respirator" dubbed Triton, a device that would allow people to breather underwater "simply by biting it," at theSamsung Art and Design Institute (SADI)graduation exhibition: South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon just unveiled a conceptual scuba mask that would allow divers to breathe underwater without air tanks. The mask, called the Triton, consists of two branching arms designed to serve as "gills" that extract oxygen from the water and deliver breathable air directly into their wearer's lungs. Instead of hauling around heavy scuba equipment, swimmers could simply bite down on a plastic mouth piece.  Yeon's concept proved popular, and in March 2014 the web siteInhabitat published an article about the nifty design. Whilethat article correctly described the Triton as a "conceptual scuba mask" and noted that "the design is just a concept" that may "someday be turned into a commercial product," the article'sheadline ("Triton Scuba Mask Transforms Divers into Human Fish") misled some readers into believing that the Triton was a fully developed, workable, real product. headline An IndieGogo page dedicated to raising funds for the project explains how the Triton gills supposedly work: Triton employs cutting-edge technology to produce 'artificial gills'. TheMicroporous Hollow Fiber makesbreathing underwater possible. The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keepwater out and let oxygen in. The micro compressor then extracts and stores the oxygen  allowing youto breathe naturally and revel in your underwater freedom. We are using a very powerful modified micro compressor, it compresses oxygen and stores the extracted oxygen in a storage tank.The micro compressor operates through a powerful modified lithium-ion battery.  However, as more skeptical reports have noted, the Triton is far more concept than product, and not necessarily a concept that will ever be realizable: skeptical   I'm not sold on the Triton. My biggest issue with it is that it would just have to filter so much water to provide all the oxygen a human needs for a single breath. The average human need 500mls of air with every breath; going in, the air has a 21% oxygen concentration and a 16% concentration coming out, for a total of ~25mls of oxygen intake with every breath. Scientific literature places the concentration of oxygen at 6mg/L of ocean water so the Triton would have to go through ... about 6L of water for each breath (assuming our lungs can scrub almost all the oxygen in the air which they don't)? I dont really think it can do that. That being said, finding a way to take oxygen out of seawater is a great idea. But Yeon needs to make this thing go through a lot of sea water very fast before it's actually usable for diving   Yeonuploaded a videoon 20 February 2016 supposedly showing a working prototype of a set of Triton gills, but given the number of cuts in the video (such that the diver is never seen fully underwater for an extended period of time and could simply be holding his breath), it's not possible to determine if the product shown actually works as claimed:  After the release of the promotional video, more articles expressed some of the same doubts about the viability of such a device, and more: articles   There are several raised by experts and commentators about the device: 1) The device has to be able to extract enough oxygen from the water to allow you to actually breath.  This is possible in theory however as pointed out in an article on Deep Sea News in 2014 (when the device first came to light as a concept) it requires not only an incredibly efficient ability to extract the oxygen  which the designers say is down to a new Microporous Hollow Fiber  but also water has to be forced through the device at upward of five liters every 15 seconds which could only be achieved with a pump bigger than the whole Triton design. 2) Next is the issue of storing the gas in a chamber  this would require a compressor and battery "order of magnitude more efficient than anything on the market today".  The makers claim on the website that they have a "very powerful modified micro compressor" but again without any real proof. 3) Let's say theyve managed to crack those two issues the next one is the ability to deliver the oxygen to you in the right amount at the right pressure to be able to breathe.  This is possible as we see it in open-circuit Scuba systems and in Closed Circuit Rebreathers however, again, there is no technology on the market right now that can achieve such a feat in such a small design. 4) Finally there is the video, on face value it looks like there is a working unit, however on close inspection you can see that it is made up of several short clips where the person seems to be getting progressively more negatively buoyant (probably due to expelling air from their lungs to create the "bubbles" from the device) and no clip ever shows a person underwater for longer than one minute.  As we know from Freediving that is not even a difficult breath-hold for most people. All-in-all the possibility of a device such as Triton is not beyond the realm of possibility at some point; sadly, though, the challenges faced by the designers just do not seem to be reasonably solved with technology available today.  The designers would have had to have developed 3 or 4 incredibly efficient and compact new technologies to make this possible.   Other commentators began question whether the Indiegogo campaign to fund development of the Triton gill device might not be a scam, given the extreme scientific unlikelihood that such a device could be built with existing technology and the lack of evidence for Triton's having produced anything beyond a mere concept: scam   Right now, an Indiegogo campaign for a device that its makers claim is "the future of underwater breathing" is raking in cash  more than $600,000 at the time of this post, $100,000 of which poured in over just 24 hours. It's easy to see the appeal of the handheld device, called the "Triton." Diving equipment is heavy and complicated. Meanwhile, the Triton looks seductively simple and the campaign says it "allows you to breathe underwater." But despite the slick crowdfunding campaign, there's no real evidence that this device actually works, multiple experts told Tech Insider. One of them is Neal Pollock, a research associate at the Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Environmental Physiology at Duke University Medical Center, and the research director for the Divers Alert Network  a non-profit organization that helps divers in medical emergencies and promotes dive safety. "In concept it sounds very good and it's very exciting," Pollock tells Tech Insider, but "I would not encourage anyone pulling out a wallet." For the makers of Triton to prove they've invented a device that can actually do what they say it can, Pollock and other experts want to see more evidence; the crowdfunding campaign and Triton website simply don't provide enough to go on. Regardless, Pollock notes the technological challenges involved in creating a device like Triton are so vast that "it's not realistic, it's science fiction."   On 1 April 2016, Triton published an update announcing the release of a new video showing the product in action.  They also disclosed that the Triton requires the use of 'liquid oxygen' cylinders, and that they had decided to refund the donations of all the backers who had contributed to so far and launch a new campaign: update video   Inside of each Triton, the artificial gills utilize liquid oxygen, which combined with the other components allow users to breathe underwater, which you can see in the video above. We will release more information about the liquid oxygen cylinders and safety strap. Note that the liquid oxygen cylinders wont last forever so we plan to make it possible for backers to purchase and exchange cylinders through our website. They will come in packs of 1, 3 and 5, and well list prices as soon as they are finalized. Were also working on a solution to make them refillable. We wanted to share it at the beginning of the campaign but were hesitant because we also wanted to  protect our intellectual property. Our success and the positive comments we have received have made it clear that these details are important for our backers to understand. We launched this campaign to build a community of people who are excited to bring Triton to life, and we are committed to making sure our backers feel confident in our efforts. After careful consideration and in light of this new information, we have decided to refund all Triton backers and launch a brand new campaign. On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003. Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll" emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way. For example, one survey question asked, "Who would you rather see fix our Nation's shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat," while another somewhat tautological question asked: "Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat." Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump's go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced "a Lyin' Democrat" and "a Low IQ Democrat"), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, "Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?" while another wrote, "Is this for real? It sounds too crazy ..." The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site: here "Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee." Committee Inc Committee The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information  respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.  The full list of questions was as follows: The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?"  accountability DonaldJTrump.com. "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll."
 June 2019. DonaldJTrump.com. "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey."
 February 2017. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic spread across the globe in March 2020, conspiracy buffs shared memes and videos featuring variations on a common theme  the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a human-made creation developed in a Chinese lab owned by all-purpose boogeyman George Soros for the purpose of causing economic disruption that would unseat Donald Trump from the U.S. presidency:    We've extensively covered the false notion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was bioengineered in a lab in Wuhan, China, in a separate article and concluded that: separate article The theory that SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured in, and escaped from, a lab in Wuhan is based solely on the proximity of infectious-disease labs near a potential source of the COVID-19 outbreak. Several scientific claims have been made or manufactured to further bolster the notion that something nefarious is going on with COVID-19 and these labs, but this information comes from non-peer-reviewed papers misconstrued to be actual additions to the scientific record, or from disreputable websites such as Mercola.com. The actual scientific facts known about the novel coronavirus leave little room for it to be a virus of human creation, however. Regardless, the idea of a Soros connection to the COVID-19 pandemic stems from the fact that Wuhan, China, was the apparent origin point of the novel coronavirus, and WuXi AppTec, a Shanghai-based pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, and medical device company, operates a "small molecule drug discovery and research services" facility there. And according to the conspiracy theory, Soros "owns WuXi AppTec." QED. origin point WuXi AppTec facility However, Soros holds no executive position at WuXi AppTec, and a list of the company's major shareholders shows that none owns more than 10% of the shares, and all of the largest shareholders are Chinese entities with no discernible connection to Soros himself. shareholders A May 2011 quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows that Soros Fund Management, a private American investment management firm, does (or did) have a holding in a related company (Wuxi PharmaTech (Cayman)). However, such institutional investment is common in the business world and does not make the head of any given investment firm the "owner" of all the businesses in which the firm holds a stake. Wuxi PharmaTech (Cayman) When pulled, the thread of Soros to Soros Fund Management, to Wuxi PharmaTech (Cayman), to WuXi AppTec, to a biotech research facility in Wuhan, leads to nothing. All credible scientific evidence indicates the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolved or mutated and was not bioengineered, and the addition of Soros to any far-fetched conspiracy theory indicates nothing so much as a lack of imagination. Marriage, Madison.  "Hedge Funds Move to Become Family Offices Is Not Entirely Popular."
  Financial Times.  22 October 2015. Kasprak, Alex.  "The Origins and Scientific Failings of the COVID-19 Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory."
  Snopes.com.  1 April 2020. Secon, Holly et al.  "A Comprehensive Timeline of the New Coronavirus Pandemic, From China's First COVID-19 Case to the Present."
  Business Insider.  1 April 2020. On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States. SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying: For too long, weve watched as our factories have been closed and our jobs have been sent to other faraway lands. Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization. And youve seen that, youve heard about it -- 70,000. The World Trade Organization -- another one of our disasters. Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs. But how many factories? And were there other factors? Previous claim Trumps claim is nearly the same one he made a month earlier at a rally in Kentucky, when he said: Since China joined  thats another beauty  the WTO in 2001, the U.S. has lost many more than 60,000 factories. PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True. Heres what our colleagues found: The latest-available U.S. Census counts, for 2014, show the number of American factory establishments has dropped to below 300,000. The decrease since China joined the World Trade Organization was nearly 61,000, according to one Census tally, and more than 73,000 according to another. Some of that decline is due to Chinas becoming a bigger player in the world economy by joining the WTO, as our colleagues reported: Around the same time China joined the WTO, the United States gave China permanent normal trade relations status. Both of these actions removed significant barriers to trade and investment with China, basically putting them on an even playing field with the United States other trading partners. In the 16 years since, United States imports from China have quadrupled, in large part because production is so cheap there, making U.S.-based manufacturers less competitive. We found three significant economic studies from the past few years that all conclude increased free trade with China has had a negative impact on American manufacturing and jobs. At the same time, experts said the loss of factories was also brought on by other factors, including U.S. trade deficits with other parts of Asia and Europe; a slow recovery after the Great Recession; and increased manufacturing productivity in the United States. TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO. For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth. Our rating Trump said: Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.The latest U.S. Census figures, for 2014, produced two counts: 73,000, which supports Trumps claim, and 61,000. And at least some of the losses can be attributed to increased trade with China. We rate the statement Mostly True. More Trump As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter. Claim:  CNN and Facebook are donating $1 per like to fund surgery for a boy with a massive tumor.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, August 2015]   Please Dont Ignore! His parents can't afford surgery so facebook and CNN are paying half of the expenses1 Like - $11 Comment - 10$1 Share - 20$ Origins:  In August 2015, the above-displayed image urging viewers to share a photograph of a boy with a massive tumor in order raise funds for his medical care was circulated widely via Facebook. But neither the image nor its claim was new; the tandem was simply a reiteration of a hoax that had circulated more than a year earlier involving the same photograph and plea. This "raise money for a child's medical care by sharing this photo on Facebook" format of hoax is common: Previous variations include a child purportedly shot  by a family member, a toddler who needed shot a heart transplant, a little girl from Poland in desperate need of money for burn treatment, a girl with a distended abdomen, and a baby born with its heart outside its body. heart transplant burn treatment abdomen heart As is often the case with these popular social media hoaxes, the image used was one of a real child suffering a real medical condition, and that image was deliberately selected with the intent of tugging at the heartstrings of Facebook users for purposes unconnected to the depicted child's recovery or well-being. The photograph used in this case is one that was widely reproduced in conjunction with 2012 news coverage about the case of a 9-year-old boy with a massive tumor who was brought to the U.S. from Ciudad Juarez in Mexico for medical treatment: news coverage A 9-year-old boy with a massive tumor was whisked from a dangerous neighborhood in Mexico in an armored vehicle by U.S. agents and taken across the border for treatment in New Mexico, his family said. The boy and his parents were snatched Thursday from the gang-infested neighborhood in Ciudad Juarez  one of the deadliest cities in the world  after members of a New Mexico Baptist church saw him near an orphanage and sought help. The parents of the child, identified by officials only as Jose to protect his family, said the tumor on his shoulder and neck has grown so large that it affects his eyesight and could move into his heart. With no money for medical care, the family sought treatment in Juarez and El Paso, but did not receive any help removing the tumor, which has afflicted Jose since birth.  In November 2014, doctors in New Mexico successfully removed Jose's tumor: removed An 11-year-old Mexican boy who had been suffering from a massive tumor and came to New Mexico for treatment has had the growth removed. Kristean Alcocer of the First Baptist Church of Rio Rancho said the boy underwent surgery at the University of New Mexico Children's Hospital to remove the tumor from his neck, shoulder and torso area. Alcocer says the surgery lasted a more than 12 hours and involved 25 medical professionals. Images such as this one are carefully selected by Facebook scammers preying on the sympathies of social media users. Many folks believe that sharing the image is harmless: If the claim is true, the child is helped; and if it's false, only a small amount of their time was wasted. But these types of hoaxes are typically lures for the distribution of malware as well as clickjacking, clickbaiting, and like-farming activities, made all the more reprehensible for their dishonest and unauthorized use of such photographs. In any case, Facebook does not directly donate money based upon likes or shares generated for any purpose. Facebook's advice for charitable giving on the social network can be found here. here In the summer of 2020, readers sent Snopes multiple inquiries about widely shared social media posts claiming that PepsiCo, the company that makes Pepsi, had donated $100 million to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In May 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompting a renewed wave of nationwide and international protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The BLM movement spearheaded much of that protest and debate, and in response, critics of the protests targeted BLM, often deploying false, exaggerated, or distorted allegations.  targeted During the summer of 2020, those critics sought to target several major U.S. companies, including PepsiCo, by claiming they had each donated substantial amounts to BLM. Social media posts in July read that: Social media posts BankofAmerica Gave them $1 BILLIONPepsiCo - $400 MILLIONWalmart - $100 MILLIONApple - $100 MILLIONComcast - $100 MILLION Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk alluded to an incident in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, in which local residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at protesters, writing on Twitter:  pointed firearms writing "In America if terrorists show up to your home, you get charged for showing that you own a weapon after they tear down your gate. And the thugs who entered on to your property get $400 million from PepsiCo. as a reward." In August 2020, social media users focused on PepsiCo, and the amount of the company's purported donation to BLM shifted from $400 million to $100 million, for reasons that are unclear, but may have resulted from a misreading of earlier posts that claimed Walmart, Apple, and Comcast had each donated $100 million to BLM.  A typical version of the post claimed that: "PEPSI JUST GAVE BLM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS... PLEASE BOYCOTT PEPSI!" typical version post claimed   The August posts that claimed PepsiCo had given $100 million to BLM appeared to have been based on the earlier claims that the company had donated $400 million. In turn, those earlier posts stemmed from an announcement the company made in June 2020. On June 16, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta wrote: wrote "Today, I am announcing the next step in PepsiCos journey for racial equality: a more than $400 million set of initiatives over five years to lift up Black communities and increase Black representation at PepsiCo. These initiatives comprise a holistic effort for PepsiCo to walk the talk of a leading corporation and help address the need for systemic change." Specifically, the company pledged to spend, over the course of five years: We asked PepsiCo whether it, or any charitable entities associated with the company, had donated to groups or projects associated with BLM, including the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the movement. We also requested a list of any recipients of charitable disbursements from the $400 million investment announced in June. We did not receive a response in time for publication. However, since $415 million was reserved for supporting Black-owned suppliers, restaurants, and small businesses, as well as starting a fellowship program, it was therefore mathematically impossible for $100 million to have been pledged for BLM. The only component of that spending that appears to leave room for any involvement with BLM is the $6.5 million reserved for "community impact grants to address systemic issues." So even if that entire portion of funding went to BLM, it would still constitute only a small fraction of the $100 million and $400 million claimed in social media posts in the summer of 2020. None of those who promoted those claims presented any evidence that linked PepsiCo's pledged investment with specific, named organizations or projects associated with the broader BLM movement or the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. The claim that PepsiCo had donated $100 million (or $400 million) to BLM appeared to be based on a basic misunderstanding of the company's June 2020 announcement  or the false assumption that any investment associated with the Black community or rectifying racial injustice must be directly connected to BLM.  Laguarta, Ramon.  "Pepsico's Journey to Racial Equality: A Message from Our CEO."
  PepsiCo. 16 June 2020. Social media is often where activists, politicians, non-profit groups, or simply members of the public share their concerns and outrage over what they perceive as miscarriages of justice. Excessive punishments, racial disparities in sentencing, and an apparently permissive attitude towards sexual assault among some judges and prosecutors have all formed the basis of viral Facebook and Twitter memes in recent years. Towards the end of 2018 and in the beginning of 2019, one case in particular caught the attention of social media users: Jacob Walter Anderson, a former student and fraternity president at Baylor University in Texas, was accused of raping a sophomore outside a frat party but ended up receiving what many observers viewed as an outrageously insufficient punishment.  NOTE: The following article includes details and descriptions of an alleged sexual assault, which might be upsetting to some readers. On 13 December 2018, Facebook user Lesley Templeton Keith posted what became a widely shared set of claims about Anderson's case, accompanied by what was presented as a photograph of him: posted Disgusting. Disgrace. His name is Jacob Walter Anderson. 'He nearly choked her to death [forcing his penis down her throat]. He raped her violently. He left her passed out in her own vomit -- the rape exam confirmed rape.' 'If the 24-year-old successfully completes three years of deferred probation and pays a $400 fine, his criminal record will be wiped clean of the charge, and he won't have to register as a sex offender, CNN affiliate KWKT said.' Make him famous. The internet never forgets.   Similarly, @Ness_Qwik tweeted on 11 December: "JACOB WALTER ANDERSON former president of Phi Delta Theta drugged, gagged, & repeatedly raped his victim til she lost consciousness. He got a $400 fine & will not have to register as a sex offender. Twitter please spread his name & face & fucking ruin him!" *Trigger Warning* JACOB WALTER ANDERSON former president of Phi Delta Theta drugged, gagged, & repeatedly raped his victim til she lost consciousness. He got a $400 fine & will not have to register as a sex offender. Twitter please spread his name & face & fucking ruin him! https://t.co/AvVKy76knt https://t.co/AvVKy76knt  Virgin Jones (@Ness_Qwikk) December 11, 2018 December 11, 2018   And on 12 December, @Nicoxw1 tweeted what appeared to be photographs of Anderson and 19th District Court Judge Ralph Strother, along with the following message: "On the left, Jacob Walter Anderson, who raped a virgin and left her unconscious. On the right, Judge Ralph Strother, who thought a $400 fine was appropriate. Remember their names and faces, this must follow them wherever they are for the rest of their lives." On the left, Jacob Walter Anderson, who raped a virgin and left her unconscious.On the right, Judge Ralph Strother, who thought a $400 fine was appropriate.Remember their names and faces, this must follow them wherever they are for the rest of their lives. pic.twitter.com/KTQFIiMti6 pic.twitter.com/KTQFIiMti6  NicoXW (@Nicoxw1) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018   Some of these claims were accurate, while others lacked context or left out relevant information. However, the central and most substantial claim, that Anderson brutally raped the woman and left her unconscious, remains unproven because the case never went to trial and therefore crucial evidence is not publicly available, no examination of witnesses took place, and no jury issued a verdict. Waco police arrested Anderson on 3 March 2016 over an incident that had taken place at a party almost two weeks earlier, as the Waco Tribune-Herald reported at the time: reported The 20-year-old Phi Delta Theta president at Baylor University was arrested on a sexual assault charge for allegedly forcing himself on a woman outside of a fraternity party, Waco police Sgt. W. Patrick Swanton said. Jacob Anderson was charged after a female was taken to Baylor Scott & White Hillcrest Medical Center for a sexual-assault medical exam following a fraternity party at a house in the 2600 block of South Third Street on Feb. 21. Hospital officials notified Waco police of the alleged assault. The female said that she had been at a party at a fraternity in South Waco. She said she was handed a drink of some kind of punch and was told, Here you go. Drink this, Swanton said, citing police reports. She said shortly after that she became very disoriented, was taken outside by our suspect, who is Jacob Walter Anderson, and she said when they got outside, Anderson forcibly sexually assaulted her. According to the arrest affidavit, Anderson took the victim to a secluded part of the grounds behind a tent in order to get some air, however once away from everyone else attending the party he sexually assaulted the woman. Court documents stated that the victim lost consciousness, but awoke alone a short time later in the same outside area before returning to the house and finding a friend, who took her immediately to the hospital. On 11 May, the office of McLennan County District Attorney Abelino Reyna indicted Anderson on four counts of sexual assault, a second-degree felony under Texas law punishable by between two and 20 years in prison. The indictment alleged that Anderson had repeatedly raped the young woman, both vaginally and orally. felony indictment In a victim impact statement submitted to Judge Ralph Strother, the young woman outlined her account of the night in question, using details and descriptions that some readers might find upsetting (Snopes is not identifying the woman in order to protect her privacy, as is standard practice in the news media in sexual assault cases): statement On February 21, 2016 when I was a 19 year old Sophomore at Baylor University, Jacob Walter Anderson took me to a secluded area behind a tent and proceeded to violently and repeatedly rape me. He repeatedly raped me orally and vaginally while choking me, gagging me and physically forcing my body into positions so he could continue to rape me. I had no control over my body and no way to stop him (please see my original written police statement). When I collapsed on the ground he pulled down his pants and shoved his penis in my mouth and down my throat gagging me. When he forcefully picked me up and shoved me into a wall to rape me vaginally from behind he calmly and coldly said Its fine. Youre fine. When I tried to pull up my pants or sit he shoved me to the ground and shoved his penis back down my throat and continued to choke me. When he forced me up again and started to rape me vaginally again I blacked out permanently. When I was completely unconscious he dumped me face down in the dirt and left me there to die. He had taken what he wanted, had proven his power over my body. He then walked home and went to bed without a second thought to the ravaged, half dead woman he had left behind. When I regained consciousness I did not know where I was. I was lying in the grass and dirt and something sticky was on my face. As I continued to throw up I realized I had been vomiting and aspirating while I was unconscious. My friends immediately took me to the hospital and a SANE exam verified the rape. I had trauma and tearing and grass inside my vagina. I was treated for HIV and many STDs and told to take plan B. I had to get labs done two more times over the next year to make sure I do not have HIV or STDs. Everytime is stressful, wondering if I might still die as a result of being raped. The police arrived and took a report. Over the course of two years, defense and prosecution attorneys supboenaed witnesses and examined evidence, and in February 2018 the woman filed a lawsuit against Anderson and 21 other members of the Baylor University Phi Delta Theta fraternity, accusing them of facilitating and contributing to her alleged sexual assault in multiple ways -- including allegedly allowing her drink to be drugged, serving alcohol to minors, and in general, being negligent with respect to the safety of guests at the February 2016 party in question.  accusing In his response to the lawsuit, Anderson denied each of the woman's allegations and demanded a jury trial in civil court. As of 15 February 2019, that civil case was ongoing. response The criminal case against Anderson took a dramatic turn on 23 August 2018, when the Waco Tribune-Herald reported that the District Attorney's office would be agreeing to a plea bargain in the case: reported "A former Baylor University fraternity president who is charged with four counts of sexual assault has reached a plea agreement with the McLennan County District Attorneys Office. Jacob Walter Anderson, 23, of Garland, is set to enter a plea Sept. 4, according to court records, which do not specify the terms of the plea bargain. The records show only that state prosecutors intend to file a superseding charging document, likely to a lesser charge than sexual assault, in exchange for Andersons plea." That decision was made without consulting the woman, and in a later court filing her attorney, Vic Feazell, wrote that she had in fact found out about the impending plea bargain by reading the Tribune-Herald on 23 August. That evening, the woman's mother emailed Feazell, asking: "What is going on? Why are we reading that the D.A. [District Attorney] is offering a plea less than sexual assault? This man raped our daughter four times and left her to die!" filing The same evening, the young woman's father emailed McLennan County Assistant District Attorney Hilary LaBorde, the lead prosecutor against Anderson. According to that same court filing, he wrote: "A plea by this rapist to a lower crime is unacceptable and will not go away quietly. My daughter was brutally raped and left to die. Why is this rapist allowed to walk away from this crime? ... The last time you spoke with my wife you said there would be no plea bargains." We asked the McLennan County District Attorney's office to respond to the claim that LaBorde had assured the victim's family there would be no plea bargain, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. The day after the Tribune-Herald article was published, LaBorde emailed the young woman and her parents, apologizing that they had found out about the plea bargain through the news media, and outlining her reasons for dropping the sexual-assault charges. She referred to a recent case involving Hunter Michael Morgan, also a Baylor University student, accused of sexually assaulting an unconscious female student after a party at his apartment. In that case, LaBorde and her fellow prosecutors had also offered a plea bargain that would have lessened the charges to unlawful restraint, but Morgan rejected the deal and was acquitted of sexual assault at trial. Here are some excerpts from LaBorde's email: that case email I apologize for not telling you both about this agreement before there was a story in our newspaper. I didn't know there would be a story about a plea that hasn't occurred and about which nothing has been made public. I've accepted an offer on Jacob Anderson. It's for probation on the charge of felony unlawful restraint not sexual assault -- therefore, he will not have to register as a sex offender. I realize this is not the outcome we had hoped for or that I had originally offered, but I tried a very similar case to this one last month, and lost. Which was devastating to the family and victim involved. In light of the similarities between the cases, it's my opinion it would be worse to try Anderson and lose and have the entire matter wiped from his criminal history than to accept this plea offer. Not to mention the emotional damage [the woman] would have to deal with if she had to testify and then felt the jury thought she was a liar. ... The victim [in the Hunter Morgan case] had injuries to her genitals and the defendant's DNA in her underwear. I actually thought the Hunter Morgan case was stronger than Jacob Anderson's because Morgan admitted the victim was intoxicated, too intoxicated to consent, and he admitted he wasn't intoxicated at all. One weakness I've always identified with Anderson is that he was drinking also -- and although I think he's exaggerating -- he acts as though he was extremely intoxicated at the time he was at the frat party. ... To speak frankly as to the injuries in [the] Anderson [case], the research suggests that victims with no sexual experience are more likely to be injured because a sexual encounter is their first. So medically speaking, [the woman's] innocence and lack of experience makes the medical evidence less helpful. ... In short, I think this jury [in the Morgan case] was looking for any excuse not to find an innocent-looking young defendant guilty. They engaged in a lot of victim blaming -- and the behavior of that victim and [Anderson's victim] is very similar. ... While I can't imagine the upset that y'all will feel at believing Anderson isn't getting what he deserves, I don't want him to get away with his crime entirely. Part of his probation will be getting sex offender treatment and alcohol treatment. Without these terms, and if he's just found not guilty, there will be no reason to think his conduct will be different the next time he's in a bar and finds a woman who can't defend herself. Given the similarities, I'm surprised the defense attorneys on Anderson are willing to plea him to anything and I don't want to squander the opportunity for there to be some consequence for him that might alter his behavior in the future. Four days later, on 28 August, the woman in the Anderson case emailed her attorney about LaBorde's response in scathing terms, writing, "I truly feel betrayed by the one person who was able to get justice," and adding: emailed "The case she lost [Texas vs. Hunter Michael Morgan] is nothing like my case ... Why is she so worried about [Anderson] getting counseling instead of him being convicted for rape? Put him in jail and he will not be able to rape another person! He can get counseling in jail!" The woman added that she felt "utter shock" at LaBorde's rationale for offering Anderson a plea bargain, summarizing it as being "because she lost a completely different case so she didn't trust a jury to do the right thing." We asked the McLennan County District Attorney's office for a detailed explanation of the decision to offer Anderson a plea bargain, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. In the end, the prosecutors did indeed drop all four charges of sexual assault against Anderson, and on 11 October 2018 indicted him on one charge of "unlawful restraint," an offense defined as "intentionally or knowingly restraining another person." indicted defined Under Texas law, unlawful restraint is typically a misdemeanor crime, but it becomes a third-degree felony if the assailant "recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury." Anderson was indicted on third-degree felony unlawful restraint, a crime punishable in Texas by a prison sentence of between two and 10 years. punishable Under the terms of his plea agreement, Anderson pleaded "nolo contendere" (no contest) to the charge of unlawful restraint, an action that has the same effect as a guilty plea. However, in exchange for this plea, prosecutors agreed with Anderson's lawyers that they would recommend to the judge the following punishment: plea agreement The young woman and her attorney vociferously rejected the plea agreement and appealed to Judge Strother to dismiss it. On 22 November 2018, the woman submitted a lengthy and detailed statement to the court, pleading with the judge not to "set free the man who raped me and ruined my life":  statement "I am writing this letter to hold the D.A. accountable to do their job and seek justice. To hold Jacob Anderson accountable for his crimes. He raped me. He almost killed me. A grand jury indicted him on four counts of sexual assault, not unlawful restraint ... There is no reason why this case should not go to trial. I would like this case to go to trial. The evidence should be heard. Witnesses should be heard. A judge and jury of [Anderson's] peers should decide if he is innocent or guilty and then and only then should he be sentenced and have to register as a sex offender." In the end, however, that jury trial never took place, and on 10 December 2018, Strother carried out the order of deferred adjudication probation for three years with several conditions for Anderson, including: order Significantly, Anderson did not have to register as a sex offender because unlawful restraint was not one of the offenses that required such registration under Texas law. If he completes his three years of probation, he will not have to go to prison for his offense, and no conviction will appear on his criminal record. If he violates any of the terms of his probation, the court could convict him of unlawful restraint and impose a prison sentence of between two and 10 years. required Some of the factual claims in the social media posts highlighted above were accurate, for example the claims that Anderson was ordered to pay a fine of $400 and did not have to register as a sex offender. The photographs included in the memes did indeed show Anderson and Judge Strother. However, the posts gave a limited picture of the penalties imposed upon Anderson. Notwithstanding the fact that many observers found the terms of the plea bargain to be woefully insufficient, Anderson's punishment did extend beyond a mere $400 fine and included probation terms that, among other requirements, restricted his freedom of movement. None of the posts mentioned the fact that if Anderson violated any terms of his probation, he would be convicted of a felony and would face a prison sentence of up to 10 years. We cannot make a determination on the veracity of the central and most substantial claim made in the memes, that Anderson repeatedly raped the woman and left her unconscious. Because no criminal trial took place, important evidence is not publicly available, no witnesses were examined, and no jury had the opportunity to issue a verdict. Anderson was never tried or convicted on any charges of sexual assault. We invited attorneys for Anderson to respond to the many allegations made against him by the young woman, her attorney, and members of the public. We did not receive a response in time for publication, but two of the attorneys who represented Anderson in the criminal case against him, Mark Daniel and Jim Moore, have in the past publicly challenged the allegations of rape made by the woman. Speaking after Judge Strother ordered deferred adjudication probation in December 2018, the attorneys told the Waco Tribune-Herald that the impact statement written by the woman at the center of the case had been "riddled with distortions and misrepresentations": told What seems to have been left out of her representation was some passionate kissing, groping and grinding by this girl and Mr. Anderson that occurred in front of more than 100 people at this party, the attorneys said. Many witnesses saw them kissing passionately several times during the party. The womans claims that she was choked is absolutely contrary to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system. She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital, Daniel said. She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face. The attorneys said there was no genetic evidence tying Anderson to the alleged offense and that the woman gave numerous inconsistent statements to the prosecution. Attorney Vic Feazell called those claims outlandish. Speaking to the Tribune-Herald at the time, he said: "It's easy for them to say all that bullshit after the fact. That's what trials are for ... It is not fair for them to come out with this bullshit without anybody being able to be cross-examined. If they wanted to cross-examine her, we should have had a trial. I don't believe that fraternity bullshit. They are all just sticking together ... If they had such a damn good case, let's go try it." Hoppa, Kristin.  "Baylor Fraternity President Charged with Sexual Assault."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  3 March 2016. Texas Penal Code.  "Title 5, Chapter 22.011 -- Sexual Assault."
  Accessed 15 February 2019. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Indictment."
  11 May 2016. 414th Judicial District Court, Texas.  "Donna Doe v. Phi Delta Theta et al. -- Plaintiff's First Amended Petition and Request for Disclosure."
  19 February 2018. 414th Judicial District Court, Texas.  "Donna Doe v. Phi Delta Theta et al. -- Defendant Jacob Walter Anderson's Original Answer and Jury Demand."
  3 April 2018. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Former Baylor Frat President Likely to Plead Down Sexual Assault Charges."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  23 August 2018. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Rockwall Man Found Not Guilty in Alleged Sexual Assault of Fellow Baylor Student."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  21 June 2018. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Superceding Information."
  11 October 2018. Texas Penal Code.  "Title 5, Chapter 20.02 -- Unlawful Restraint."
  Accessed 15 February 2019. Office of the Attorney General, Texas.  "Penal Code Offenses By Punishment Range."
  March 2018. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Disclosure of Plea Recommendation."
  15 October 2018. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Order of Deferred Adjudication."
  10 December 2018. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  "Title 1, Chapter 62 -- Sex Offender Registration Program."
  Accessed 15 February 2019. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Anderson Attorneys Hit Back After Criticism of Plea Deal."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  11 December 2018.