The average bonus [on Wall Street] is about $100,000...The bonuses on Wall Street are down 44 percent.
Reports about big bonuses for Wall Street executives have struck a nerve with people who wonder how the executives can justify large payments when their firms are in shaky condition or are seeking federal help. It's drawn the ire of President Obama, who called it the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful. On Feb. 4, 2009, he said top executives at firms receiving federal aid will have their compensation capped at $500,000 and that bonuses would have to come as stock that they can't receive until the government is reimbursed. The New York State Comptroller reported in late January that Wall Street firms in 2008 handed out $18.4 billion in cash bonuses to employees who live in New York City, the sixth-largest amount on record. Critics have said the employees don't deserve the rewards because the firms lost more than $35 billion in 2008 and the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out many of them. Fred Smith, chief executive of FedEx and supporter of George W. Bush, John McCain and other Republicans, tried to cool down the heated discussion with a bit of perspective on ABC'sThis Weekon Feb. 1, 2009. Host George Stephanopoulos noted that Smith actually took a pay cut in December. You announced a 20 percent pay cut because of the performance of FedEx over the last year, because of the tough economic times. And I wonder ... what do you think of the bonus structure now on Wall Street? Smith replied that compensation on Wall Street is built on bonuses much more so than in the industrial sector. As I understand it, the average bonus in that $18 billion is about $100,000 a year. The bonuses on Wall Street are down about 44 percent. Smith was not far off when it came to the average cash bonus. It was $112,000 in 2008, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's Jan. 28, 2009, report. And indeed bonuses were down 44 percent in a sense: The total amount given out in bonuses, $18.4 billion, was a decline of 44 percent from the $32.9 billion handed out in 2007. But due to job losses on Wall Street, there were fewer employees to split the pie in 2008. So the average bonus was down a slightly more modest 37 percent from the previous year's average. Also, it might have been worth pointing out that while bonuses were well below the 2007 level, that average of $112,000 was still the fifth-highest since the comptroller's office started keeping records in 1985. And the total haul of $18.4 billion was the sixth highest on record. Both were around the same as 2004, a vastly better year for the securities industry and its investors. And although it's true that bonuses generally make up a substantial portion of the compensation on Wall Street, $112,000 is still more than twice the average salary in the United States. But Smith is free to use statistics selectively  and the statistics he chose were off by just $12,000 and a few percentage points. We find his statement Mostly True.
Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know In January 2022, an image circulated online allegedly alerting Caucasian customers of the fast food chain McDonald's that they would be required to pay an additional fee:   "As an insurance measure, due in part to the recent coup attempt of the Capital (sic) earlier this year, all Caucasian customers are required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction." McDonald's has no such policy, but the image appears to be a variation of a similar internet post. In 2012, a similar image with similar wording circulated online claiming that McDonald's was instituting an additional $1.50 fee on Black customers. claiming Mikkelson, David. "FACT CHECK: Did a McDonalds Impose a Surcharge on African-American Customers to Cover Robbery Insurance? Snopes, 24 Jan. 2012, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/self-insured/. Scam:  Vendors have been duped into shipping large orders to Nigeria, only to find they've been paid with stolen credit cards.  REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Origins:  Nigeria is recognized as one of the most corrupt places on Earth, having become notorious as a hotbed of international theft, chicanery, and fraud. Within that country almost no business transaction is free from the taint of bribery, and it has been estimated that seventy percent of the goods entering Nigeria are smuggled in.  This West African country gained its dubious international reputation in the 1980s after government corruption and a fall in oil prices crippled its economy. It is crushed under an estimated $30 billion debt, soaring unemployment, and galloping inflation. According to the United Nations Development Program, seven of every ten Nigerian citizens earn less than $1 a day. In this environment, chicanery has become a way of life because very little else pays nearly as well. Although the country's leaders have pledged to tackle the international fraud rings and clean up the graft that thrived during the lawless years of military dictatorships, theft has  become so much a part of Nigerian culture that those who perpetrate it do so with little fear of punishment, let alone possess any real sense of wrongdoing. Many of those Nigerians who make their living through larceny believe that if caught they need only return a part of what they've taken for the matter to be fully resolved  the concept of going to jail for having victimized others is just not a part of the thought process.  Nigerian scam artists are masters at defrauding those who live in other nations. They have been highly successful at this endeavor through the venerable Nigerian scam, and they just recently have begun scalping many via the cashier check scam. But of late they have seemingly also discovered the potential of "card not present" (CNP) credit card transactions. CNP sales offer enterprising thieves the opportunity to have the goods they are stealing shipped directly to them  all it takes are seemingly valid credit card numbers and less-than-savvy merchants to victimize. Given that Nigeria is host to a thriving black market that makes disposing of ill-gotten goods not only an easy but lucrative undertaking, CNP theft is a natural for that land's swindlers to have turned their hands to. Nigerian scam cashier check Prior to the Internet, CNP (card not present) transactions were termed MOTO (Mail Order/Telephone Order) sales. CNP sales differ from point of sale (POS) transactions in that merchants do not ever see the actual cards or the persons proffering them. Whereas charge card sales made in stores conclude with prospective buyers presenting themselves and their chargeplates to the vendors, credit card purchases made over the phone, through the Internet, or by mail are effected merely by providing the data printed on the cards. These transactions are thus far less secure undertakings for merchants to engage in, given that the information being provided can't be even somewhat confirmed by a glance at the cards, or the identities of the buyers established by having them show additional proofs of who they are.  The CNP scam works like this: A retailer is contacted by phone or through e-mail by a prospective buyer looking to purchase a largish quantity of goods with a credit card. Often these goods are to be shipped to Nigeria, with the buyer unconcerned about the tremendous cost of transporting the order. In some cases, the buyer will look to split the cost of the order across a number of credit cards.  In a number of cases, Nigerians looking to disguise their identities have taken to placing calls through relay telephone systems that had been set up to assist the deaf. (As to how that works, hearing-impaired phone users type text messages on teletypewriters [TTY]. These text messages are relayed to specialized call centers where they are converted into spoken word for the people at the other ends of the phone lines. When these other parties reply, their messages are converted into text and relayed back to the hearing-impaired users.) Such "relaying" disguises what would have been otherwise telltale accents. Also, because there is no cost for this service, Nigerians can make these calls to businesses in the U.S. without racking up international phone charges.               Only after the goods have been shipped does the seller come to the realization that the credit card used to effect the transaction was stolen. By then it is too late  the goods are gone, as is the "buyer."  Merchants have to be especially wary of fraudulent credit card purchases because they bear the financial burden of any losses so incurred. Whereas a shopper who is robbed of his chargeplate is liable for only the first $50 of charges subsequently made against it, the merchant who accepts a purloined card is left holding the bag. If a thief uses hot plastic to "buy" thousands of dollars worth of goods from an overly trusting shopkeeper, that shopkeeper is out the value whatever the thief left the store with or had shipped to him  there is no $50 cap on the seller's losses. We've grown accustomed to thinking of "businesses" as large financial entities, the sorts of mercantile behemoths that can easily weather a little theft here, a little fraud there. However, often the retailers who fall victim to this form of theft are small businesses run by single proprietors dependent on their shops' income for their livelihood. In those instances, there is no big, thick cushion of profits piled on profits, no built-in allowance for "shrinkage" (the retail term for losses due to pilferage)  the theft is a direct blow to people struggling to make a go of it. Indeed, larger businesses are less likely to fall prey to such fleecings in that their employees responsible for dealing with credit card transactions have been trained in what to look out for. In Mom 'n' Pop stores, training often amounts to only whatever instructions the person doing the hiring comes up with; if that person isn't savvy in fraud circumvention, the clerks he or she trains won't be either. Also, those operating or working for small outfits are far more likely to let desire to make sizable sales temporarily blind them to the dangers inherent to big CNP orders. Larger sales mean more in small shops, and they mean more not just to the owners but also to the employees involved because, being fewer of them, they are far more likely to benefit from the shop's success vis--vis more money being available with which to fund raises or underwrite improved incentive and benefit plans. Here is a sampling of some Nigerian-run CNP frauds that successfully scammed small businesses out of their goods:  In December 2003, an Omaha firm that made Christmas lights and decorations found itself taken to the tune of about $10,000  it had shipped goods to a buyer in Nigeria who had used a stolen card. The defrauded company became suspicious only when the buyer then looked to order American flag displays and five expensive Sony telephones, the latter not even being something the company vended.  In April 2004, a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, man who ran his own computer business was defrauded of $15,000. He filled and shipped three orders (including one for 65 ink-jet cartridges) before being asked by his customer for one hundred disc drives which the buyer planned to pay for by dividing the bill among eight credit cards. The proposed transaction raised enough of a red flag for the man to realize what had been going on. The thief had taken the added precaution of covering his tracks well: because the calls had been placed through a relay operator, they could not be traced and no voice was heard. (Such calls are typically placed by the deaf.)  In the summer of 2002, a bookstore owner in Richmond, Virginia, was duped out of $9,200 worth of goods when she accepted four orders in August and September via the Internet for a total of 270 Bibles and 31 electronic hand-held Bibles to be mailed to Nigeria. The loss put the bookstore into further financial distress  sales had been languishing before that, and the owner hadn't taken a salary since May of that year.  In April 2003, a non-profit organization in Albuquerque lost close to $1,000 in goods when it accepted a credit card charge for a large number of T-shirts. Its losses could have been far greater in that the thief was attempting to place a further 12 orders when the first theft was discovered. (Even then, the "buyer" had the gall to call the non-profit to insist the bad credit card number was simply a mistake.) Sometimes those looking to move stolen merchandise to Nigeria do so by way of having the goods first shipped to U.S. addresses before being repackaged for transit to their final destination of the black market in Nigeria. They position innocent parties in the U.S. to act as temporary guardians of the incoming bounty, an act that gives vendors the false security of their goods being delivered to American addresses (from which they would assume they could be reclaimed if anything went wrong with the sale). Those desperate to make a bit of money will find themselves approached by Nigerians who will claim they are in the business of provisioning shops in that faraway land, but that their having to ship items piecemeal is killing their bottom line because the freight charges are murder. Would the dupe consent to their using his house as a central collection point where they could assemble their various purchases into one super shipment, or even doing the repackaging and shipping on their behalf? But of course they would be willing to pay a fee for the use of the premises for as long as their consignments were taking up space and to recompense him for his trouble. The best such unwitting dupes can hope for are understanding police officers, in that sooner or later the boys in blue are bound to come knocking as one defrauded vendor after another reports having shipped goods to that address. In a worse scenario, those whose homes are being used as way stations will be assumed to have been in on the racket and will find themselves charged with receiving stolen goods:   In January 2004, a Mishawaka, Indiana, man fell in with such a scheme, storing items for a Nigerian woman who had convinced him she was starting up a business in her land and needed him to serve as a central collection point for her purchases prior to mailing them to her. The dupe met the woman (known only as "Brown Sugar") in an Internet chat room. Computer company Hewlett-Packard twigged police to what was going on after two computers bought from it with stolen cards showed up as having been shipped to the Mishawaka man's address. Police recovered DVD players, cameras, boots, clothing, and herbal and sexual supplements from the man's home. No charges were laid against the man because the investigation into the matter showed him to be a victim, not one of the perpetrators.  In July 2003, 42-year-old Leonett G. Knoll of Albany, New York, was charged with receiving stolen property after police discovered $50,000 worth of purloined goods at his house that he was preparing to ship to a confederate in Nigeria. Like the unnamed Mishawaka man, he too had been befriended in a chat room and persuaded to serve as a collection point for items to be freighted to Nigeria.  In February 2003, a New Hampshire couple were arrested after local police and U.S. Postal inspectors found a large amount of stolen merchandise in their home that they intended to reship to Nigeria.  A December 2003 news story out of Anchorage, Alaska, reports that at least two people in that city were roped into becoming receivers of stolen goods via a newspaper ad looking for folks interested in making money at home using the Internet. On the promise of being paid later by check, these folks received goods from local companies and shipped them off to Nigeria, only long afterwards realizing they'd been part of a crime. Most of the time those who are using stolen credit cards to move goods to Nigeria are operating from that distant land and thus lie well outside the grasp of U.S. law enforcement. It is the sad reality of such thefts and frauds that they go unpunished because their perpetrators are safe in another jurisdiction. But sometimes the perpetrators make the mistake of operating where American justice can get its hooks into them. In March 2003, 19-year-old Ikemefuna Iwunoh was arrested in Wichita on federal charges for his part in such thefts. The young man had been part of a group of Nigerian nationals who had hacked into computer systems to steal credit card numbers from across the country and had used some of the numbers so collected to order a variety of goods delivered to his home (for later reshipment to Nigeria, where they would fetch double their value on the black market). Some days as many as 40 boxes (containing computers, printers, shoes, and clothing) were delivered to his door. Three others in Pittsburgh were charged along with Iwunoh: Itobore Oshobe, 24; Ote Kadana, 23; and Andrew Ikepeme, 19. Investigators estimated that the apartment in Wichita was the base for about $100,000 in fraudulent charges between August 2002 and March 2003.  Barbara "charge of the light-fingered brigade" Mikkelson How To Avoid Falling Victim To CNP Scams: Always keep in mind that electronic approval of a credit card vets only that the charge account itself is valid; it does not guarantee that the person presenting it to you is its legitimate holder. Verify with the issuer that the card has not been reported stolen before proceeding with any large order.   Be wary of any CNP transactions (Internet, mail, telephone order) where one or more of the following indicators are present:  Larger than normal orders. Orders placed where card numbers used are similar and/or sequential. Orders going to international addresses. Orders consisting of several of the same item. Many orders shipped to a single address. Orders shipped rush or overnight. Orders originating from free e-mail addresses. Orders where the "ship to" and "bill to" addresses are different. Orders with requests that costs be split on one card or across several cards.  When faced with a suspect order, verify the customer's billing address, either electronically or by an automated phone system via accessing an Address Verification System (AVS).   Turn down orders which involve shipping goods to Nigeria.   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."  Additional Information:       Foiling Credit Card Fraud   (Bankrate.com)   Last updated:  11 July 2011    Johnson, May Lee.  "Internet Fraud Reported."   South Bend Tribune.  10 January 2004  (p. A1).     Jordon, Steve.  "Nigerian Scam Fools Omaha Firm."   Omaha World Herald.  12 December 2003  (p. B1).     King, Ronette.  "Scams Thrive on Corruption, Rampant Poverty."   [New Orleans] Times-Picayune.  9 June 1996  (p. F1).     Murphy, John.  "Reform in a Country of Cons."   The Baltimore Sun.  20 February 2004  (p. A2).     Tsong, Nicole.  "Internet Scammers Succeed in Schemes Duping Alaskans."   Anchorage Daily News.  15 December 2003  (p. B1).     Albuquerque Journal.  "AG Warms of Net Scam."   10 April 2003  (Business Outlook, p. 20).     Associated Press.  "Former Community College Student Arrested in Black-Market Scam."   7 March 2003.     Associated Press.  "Arrests in Wichita and Pittsburgh in Credit Card Scam."   7 March 2003.     Lancaster New Era.  "Business Here Loses $15,000 in Scam."   5 April 2004  (p. B1).     The [Albany] Times Union.  "Cops Link Scam, Web, Nigeria."   25 July 2003  (p. B14).     WMAQ-TV, Chicago.  "Caller Gives Two Credit Card Numbers."   26 April 2004. As thousands of protesters continued to gather in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in September 2016 to protest the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, social media users widely circulated a photograph purportedly showing a young protester staring down a police officer garbed in full riot gear:  North Dakota. The United States of America. 2016. You need to know what is happening. The tribes are not speaking up for only themselves, but for all people who rely on clean water to live. You do drink water, don't you? This little girl is standing up for you. Although this photograph is real, it was not taken in North Dakota nor does it have anything to do with protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. This image originated with the Reuters news service and captured a moment from a September 2016 political demonstration in Chile: Reuters A demonstrator looks at a riot policeman during a protest marking the country's 1973 military coup in Santiago, Chile  September 12, 2016 01:00pm EDT Facebook user "Bc EchoHawk," who originally shared the above-displayed photograph along with the claim that it was taken in North Dakota, later updated his Facebook post with correct information about the photograph's origins: CORRECTION: This photo does not come from the Sacred Stone Camp, as I believed, knowing the ND Governor had sent National Guard troops to the area. It was taken from a protest earlier this week in Chile. So, while this young girl is not in ND, there ARE children there who clearly understand what is happening, and continue to fight for clean water and treaty rights with their families. I stand firmly behind my original words, and if inadvertently using an inaccurate photo allowed those words to be seen and shared by over 50K people, then more power to FB. Why doesn't anybody share my cat memes like this? While "Bc EchoHawk" admitted the mistake, this photograph is still being widely shared with along with the incorrect claim that it was taken in North Dakota and not Chile. North Dakota Claim:  List demonstrates the concept of "a billion." Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2003] A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases:  A billion seconds ago it was 1959.  A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.  A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it. Origins:  We   don't know the specific origins of this piece illustrating the enormousness represented by the number one billion, but it's reasonably accurate as far as the arithmetic goes.  We collected the example quoted above and first published this article back in 2003, and rather than updating this page annually, we've chosen to keep our comments relative to that year. We have to start out by noting that the definition of "billion" is not standardized.  In some places and usages, a billion is a one followed by nine zeros, or one thousand million; in other cases, a billion is a one followed by twelve zeros, or one million million.  In the U.S., the common usage of "billion" refers to a one followed by nine zeros (or 1,000,000,000), so that's the standard we employ here. billion  A billion seconds: One billion seconds is about 31.7 years, so going back in time a billion seconds would put us in 1972.  (The discrepancy in the version cited above, which puts the year at 1959, might have come about because the example we collected was compiled or last updated in 1990.)  A billion minutes:  One billion minutes is approximately 1901 years, so travelling back to a time one billion minutes ago would land us in the year A.D. 102.  This date is about seventy years too late to encompass the life of Jesus according to traditional accounts. (The discrepancy of several decades might be the result of someone's faulty arithmetic or historical knowledge, or it could be an indication that this piece originated back in the 1930s.)  A billion hours:  One billion hours ago represents a time a bit over 114,000 years in the past, an era generally classified as the Lower Paleolithic era, or the "Old Stone Age."  A billion days ago: Some versions of this piece include the line "A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet."  A billion days is approximately 2.74 million years; the era defined by that time period is generally estimated to be about when the first species of the genus Homo appeared in Africa, having diverged from the Australopithecines. Homo  A billion dollars ago:  If the U.S. federal government were spending a billion dollars every 8 hours and 20 minutes, its total yearly expenditure would be a little more than $1 trillion.  In the last few years, the budgets approved by Congress have been about double that amount, or $2 trillion per year. After Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in August 2005, someone politicized the "billions" piece by adding the following coda to it: Some interesting statistics While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans  It'samazing what you can learn with some simple division ... Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean? Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every  man,  woman, child), you each get $516,528. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787 Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012. Are all your calculators broken in Washington, D.C.? Maybe all of us should just flood their houses, then we can all be on the "big easy" street for the rest of our lives, and forget about working, and paying taxes and all that useless stuff! In September 2005, the two U.S. Senators from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu (a Democrat) and David Vitter (a Republican), jointly introduced the Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief and Economic Recovery Act in Congress, a bill that sought a total of $250 billion in federal funds to provide long-term relief and assistance to the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.  Of course, the legislation didn't propose that the entire amount be spent on New Orleans alone, or that the money literally be distributed to New Orleans  residents  the point of the coda was to provide some perspective on how much $250 billion is by presenting it relative to the number of people in the area hardest hit by the hurricane. Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief and Economic Recovery Act In any case, the arithmetic is a little bit off.  Assuming the population and home figures provided to be correct, dividing $250 billion equally among all New Orleans residents would mean:   Each person would receive $515,810.   The money/home ratio would be $1,328,014.   A family of four would take in an aggregate total of $2,063,240. Last updated:  22 April 2008    Sources:   Grunwald, Michael and Susan B. Glasser.  "Louisiana Goes After Federal Billions."   The Washington Post.  26 September 2005  (p. A1). Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. Example: [Collected via Twitter, August 2016]   Origins: On 19 August 2016, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump traveled to Louisiana to survey property damaged by recent flood waters. While Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards warned Trump that this visit should not be turned into a campaign photo-op, the news media managed to snap at least one photograph of Trump unloading a box of Play-Doh brand modeling clay from a truck at the Church International in St. Amant.  photo-op The picture was widely spread on social media and gave many the impression that Trump had donated nothing but Play-Doh to help those who had lost homes to the floods in Louisiana:   The GOP nominee did not at the time issue a press release detailing what items he donated, nor how those donations were funded. (Were these personal donations? Did he collect items from supporters? Did the campaign pay for them?) Regardless, although Trump did donate Play-Doh modeling clay to flood victims in Louisiana, that was not his only donation to those in need, as a video of his helping to unload a truck clearly shows that the donations included much more than just Play-Doh:   Play-Doh, diapers, baby formula, various toys, cleaning supplies and socks can be seen in the above-displayed video. A CNN report also noted that Trump had donated blankets and school supplies. noted In addition to questioning the contents of Trump's donation, some were skeptical that the candidate had donated anything at all, claiming that Trump merely helped to unload a truck of supplies donated by another organization. However, CNN and The Creole, the latter an online news source for Ascension Parish in Louisiana, reported that Trump himself had "donated" an 18-wheeler full of supplies: reported Trump spent approximately 20-25 minutes inside the command center and asked a lot of questions, according to [St. Amant Fire Chief James E.] LeBlanc. He also donated a 18-wheeler full of supplies and expressed concern for residents, damage to homes, how much water was in the area and if any assistance had been given by the federal government. A church spokesperson also confirmed that the supplies were donated by Donald Trump: We are responding to your email inquiring about the video showing Donald Trump unloading supplies at our church. These supplies were donated by Donald Trump. Although a specific list of donated items was not available, the candidate clearly assisted in providing more than just Play-Doh to the people of Louisiana.  In August 2017, interest in this item was re-ignited amid debate about the President Trump's response to Houston flood victims following Hurricane Harvey. response Hurricane Harvey Claim:  ABC News' 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel was fired for trying to air a piece critical of health care reform.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Amazing that John Stossel, the beauty boy of ABC and who was the true investigative reporter for the truly non-political program 20/20 program was fired when he tried to run this. Anyone know what is going on? Everyone like the change? Now you can hear and see WHY John was fired!!! (Where was Obama?> The following link is to John Stossel's ABC (20-20) special that was delayed by ABC until after Henry Waxman's House committee voted on HR3200. Possibly you have already seen it because, thank goodness, a lot of people have discovered it and are forwarding it to everyone they know. ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062 https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062   Origins:  In September 2009, John Stossel, who had been a part of ABC News' popular 20/20 television program since 1981 (and had co-anchored the show since 2003), announced he was leaving that network for FOX:  John Stossel FOX Award-winning journalist John Stossel has signed a multi-year deal with FOX Business Network and the FOX News Channel. Stossel, who is best known for his work on ABC's "20/20," will anchor a one-hour, weekly program on FOX Business, entitled "Stossel." It will debut in the fourth quarter of 2009 in FOX Business's prime-time lineup. The program will look at consumer-focused topics, such as civil liberties, the business of health care and free trade. Contrary to what is claimed above, no one involved  not ABC, Fox, or John Stossel himself  reported or claimed that Stossel had been "fired" (for "trying to run a program on health care" or any other reason).  John Stossel voluntarily chose to leave ABC and take up a better opportunity with Fox: In a post on his ABC blog, Mr. Stossel said he wanted to "dig into the meaning of the words 'liberty' and 'limited government'" on the program. "ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more air time and a new challenge," he added. In a statement, ABC News wished Mr. Stossel well and said he would be "an asset to Fox News in this next chapter of his terrific career." It is true that John Stossel expressed disappointment with ABC's delayed airing of his critical piece on the Canadian health care system("Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"), but even he acknowledged that the piece was pushed back four weeks from its original air date to accommodate more timely (and ratings-garnering) coverage about Michael Jackson, who had just died, and not because it was deliberately delayed until after a House committee vote on health care reform.   As he wrote on his ABC blog on 29 June 2009: Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation? Here's one blog comment, after I reported that ABC will hold my health care report in favor of more Michael Jackson coverage: Free market in action. See there Stossel? What's not to like about that?Posted by: jan | Jun 26, 2009 5:12:12 PM p.s. Stossel. You've been hoisted on your own petard. Cheerio. Jan is right. It's the free market in action.  Of course, maybe my bosses made the wrong choice.  Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my health care report.  But the beauty of the market is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt. Networks better at giving the public what we want will take their business.  Id rather have viewers vote with their remotes than have elites govern our choices, making sure we watch "serious" programming.  Yes, I am sick of the coverage of Michael Jackson.  I hate it that ABC didn't run my piece. Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses. I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad. Free speech means rude obscenity and hate speech.  I treasure free speech too. Last updated:  5 November 2009    FOX Business.  "John Stossel to Join FOX Business Network."   10 September 2009. In the summer of 2020, readers asked us to examine widely shared Facebook posts that claimed the Kroger supermarket chain was refusing to give customers cash change, and thereby overcharging them.  One widely shared post from July 9 stated that: post "Kroger will no longer keep coins in the drawer. Starting tomorrow. We will take them, but we can't give change. You can round up to the nearest dollar and donate it to the food bank, or round up and it goes onto your Kroger card as a credit. So it begins ..."   One week later, Facebook users began sharing a post that purported to describe a contentious transaction and conversation at a Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois. The post claimed that, in light of a coin shortage, Kroger was rounding up the price of items to the next dollar, where a customer pays in cash, and then refusing to give out change, thus effectively overcharging customers: users began sharing post ... Stopped by Kroger today for just a gallon of milk. Seems due to this "Change Shortage", their new policy is to round every cash purchase UP to the next full dollar! I can even accept if they insisted on they could not "give" any coin back.It cost $2.41. I offered $2.50 payment. The clerk refused the quarters, explained "due to change shortage" policy & demanded another dollar instead. I offered the $2.50 again.Clerk: "Your total is $3.00."Me: The total is $2.41, which $2.50 adequately covers & I don't care to give up the 9 cent, but I do NOT accept being up charged 60 cent while you refuse to take the coins I am offering.Clerk: it's $3.00 So literally the clerk was insisting I pay the $3 or they were refusing the sale. WTF ?!?...   A nationwide coin shortage did take place in the summer of 2020, contrary to a prevalent conspiracy theory that falsely claimed the crisis was fabricated or manufactured in order to usher in a cashless economy as part of a broader push towards a "New World Order." That conspiracy theory reared its head in the Kroger post, which included the line, "This is how being FORCED into a Cashless economy begins!" did take place conspiracy theory Remarkably, it is not clear what Kroger's company policy was with regard to providing cash change to customers, at the time the Bourbonnais Facebook post was originally published, in the early hours of July 16.  Initially, a spokesperson for the company provided Snopes a statement which asserted that, in light of the ongoing nationwide coin shortage, Kroger was offering customers the option of receiving the amount of their change in the form of loyalty card credit or rounding up their total and donating the remainder to charity, as well as the existing options of paying by credit or debit card, or paying by cash and getting cash change. The statement read: "We remain committed to providing our customers with an uplifting shopping experience and the freedom and flexibility to choose their payment method, including cash, during this unprecedented time. The Federal Reserve is experiencing a significant coin shortage across the U.S., resulting from fewer coins being exchanged and spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many retailers and businesses, we are adjusting to the temporary shortage in several ways while still accepting cash. "Customers can switch their payment type (e.g., use debit or credit vs. cash), and through our upgraded technology, we can now load coin change to their loyalty card for use during the next shopping trip, provide coin change at a lane with coins available or round up their order to support The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, a public charity committed to creating communities free of hunger and waste." [Emphasis is added.] However, after this fact check was first published, we became aware of contradictory public statements attributed to Kroger earlier in July. In a July 15 article, KABC-TV reported that Kroger had "announced this week that they will not be returning coin change to customers who pay with cash." The article attributed the following statement to the company: KABC-TV "Currently our stores are collecting donations... by allowing customers to round up their order total to the next dollar... For customers that choose not to donate, our cashiers will load the coin value due back through their loyalty card. Customers can redeem the amount on their next transaction. We know this is an inconvenience for our customers and we appreciate their patience." That statement made no mention of the continued possibility of customers receiving their coin change as coin change, an omission which naturally indicates that Kroger policy at that time was to not provide customers with coin change.  On July 10, a named company spokesperson appears to have told another news outlet that Kroger policy was to no longer give out coin change. WXIX reported that: "Kroger spokesperson Erin Rofles confirmed Friday the grocer will no longer return coin change to customers. Instead, the remainders from cash transactions will be applied to customers loyalty cards and automatically used on their next purchase." WXIX We asked Kroger to explain these glaring discrepancies in the company's various public articulations of its policy on coin change. A spokesperson said that the statement initially provided to Snopes (which asserted that company policy was to give customers the option of receiving coin change) was "first issued on July 13," suggesting the company had been consistent in its messaging on the subject. We found the same wording in a series of tweets the company sent to a customer on July 14. Nevertheless, the company also told KABC-TV the opposite in an article published the following day.  tweets In one particularly egregious example of the confusion surrounding Kroger's articulation of its policy, on July 14 the company actually posted two different sets of tweets in response to the same customer's inquiries on Twitter. In one pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that customers could either have their change loaded on to their loyalty card or donated to charity (no mention of coin change). In a second pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that the company could accept a credit or debit card as payment, or load the customer's change on to their loyalty card, or have it donated to charity, or they could "provide coin change at a lane with coins available."  sets of tweets The company spokesperson suggested to Snopes that news articles reporting that Kroger was no longer giving out coin change might have been based on signs that have been erected inside Kroger supermarkets. The spokesperson provided the following example, which reads: ATTENTION CUSTOMERS:The Federal Reserve is currently experiencing a coin shortage. Please consider Rounding Up for Zero Hunger ZeroWaste, using exact change or another form of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause and appreciate your help.   A sign that apologizes to customers for the inconvenience associated with an ongoing nationwide coin shortage, suggests three ways to avoid the need to provide change, and omits to mention that customers can still get their change in coin form is very obviously likely to create the perception that Kroger no longer gives out coin change.  We asked Kroger for exact details on whether, when and how its policy on coin change had changed; as well as whether, when, and how those changes had been communicated to Kroger's regional divisions, in-store employees, and paying customers. We will update this fact check if we receive a response to those questions.  In its initial statement to Snopes, Kroger gave us the clear impression that its policy on coin change was unambiguous, made no mention of any existing confusion or misinformation over that policy, and made no mention whatsoever that the company and its spokespersons had previously made directly contradictory public statements about that policy.  In reality, Kroger and its spokespersons had indeed issued contradictory and confusing public statements, and had done so before the original "Bourbonnais" Facebook post was published in the early hours of July 16. As a result, we are changing the rating in this fact check from "false" to "Mixture." It's not entirely clear what took place at the Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois, specifically, but it appears to have been at least similar to the description in the widely shared Facebook post. A spokesperson for the company told Snopes:  "The associate who engaged with this customer was newly trained to the cashier role and misunderstood the various ways were adapting to the temporary national coin shortage. It is an isolated event, and weve since coached the associate and contacted the customer." This appears to be a tacit admission by the company that, in the specific instance highlighted in the Facebook post, the cashier did incorrectly insist on receiving $3 in cash for the milk, but that this was not in keeping with the company's policy, although as we outlined above, the company's public articulation of its policy on coin change has not been consistent. The image of a receipt that accompanied the viral Facebook post was dated July 15, and indicates that the customer in question paid $3 in cash for a $2.41 container of milk (after tax). A line in the receipt labelled "change shortage" had $0.59 next to it, and the "change" line had 0.00 next to it. That indicates that the customer did not receive cash change.  Shortly after midnight on July 16, a person who lives near Bourbonnais, whose name we are withholding because their original Facebook post was private, published what appears to be the original version of the subsequently widely shared post. (That original version of the post began "Stopped by Kroger today" while versions published later began "Stopped by Kroger yesterday," and the edit history of the post shows that a photograph of the receipt that showed the name of the cashier was replaced with a photograph showing the cashier's name obscured -- both signs that the post was published by the customer in question).  We contacted that person, whose identity we verified. In an email to Snopes, that person reiterated the version of events presented in the original Facebook post. The customer clarified that it was not possible to purchase the milk with a debit or credit card because the patron lives on "a cash basis." To complicate matters further, on July 22 a Facebook page with the name "KROGER-Bourbonnais" published responses to the viral post, explaining that the company was "currently allocating the remaining change that you would typically receive after your purchase to your Kroger Loyalty Card," but later wrote that "we are not rounding up ... it was just a mistake of [sic] a cashier." explaining later Those posts were not written by an authentic Kroger company account, a spokesperson told Snopes, adding "Our social media team isnt affiliated with it." Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?"
  Snopes.com.  8 July 2020. Grider, Geoffrey.  "Remember the Psy-Op Called the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Now We Are Pretending There's a National Coin Shortage ..."
  NowTheEndBegins.com.  11 July 2020. Updated [23 July 2020]: Rating changed from "false" to "Mixture." Article substantially updated to include Kroger's previous, contradictory public articulations of its policy on coin change. In July 2017, social media users shared videos and images of burning trees and melting streetlights, the purported results of a record-breaking heatwave in Kuwait during which temperatures soared to 62 Celsius (143.6 Fahrenheit). First of all, a 62 Celsius day has never been recorded. The highest temperature on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization, was 56.7C (134F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek, California. The highest temperature in Kuwait, 54C, was recorded in Mitrabah in July 2016. Although the footage of trees burning is likely real, the claim that these fires were caused by 62 Celsius temperatures is unfounded. temperature recorded The weather in Kuwait hovered around 50C during July 2017: hovered   The web site Frontnews.eu shared one of the most popular videos of this claim, showing a tree burning on the side of the road along with the report that the temperature had reached 62C in Kuwait: shared In Kuwait, the air temperature in some places reached 62 degrees Celsius in an open area where there is no shadow. Users of social networks share videos of burning trees, bushes, and also note that because of the heat, gasoline in the car tanks exploded.  This video was actually shot in Madinah, Saudi Arabia, and captured a palm tree that was struck by lightning, as the website alweeam.com reported (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity): actually Madinah struck A thunderbolt struck a palm tree on the famous Sultana Street in Madinah. Following the heavy rains in the region today and some of its provinces, the fire broke out in the entire palm before the civil defense fire brigade began its work. A video clip was documented by a citizen. The burning process started gradually with the burning palm tree, and quickly spread to the whole of the surrounding area, causing danger to the firefighters before the fire brigade put out the fire in the palm and the surrounding trees.                                         .                                               . A second video purported to show a plant burning due to Kuwait's high temperatures:  Although this video was shot in Kuwait, we found no evidence to suggest that the plant burst into flame solely because of high air temperatures. Local news reports (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity) noted the cause of the fire was unknown: reports Firefighters extinguished a fire in a number of trees on the first ring road near the Martyr's Park. In the details, a report was sent to the operating room stating that a fire broke out on the first ring road. The Shuwaikh industrial fire station was called and the fire was extinguished. Firefighters are currently investigating.                .                           .        . A photograph of a melting traffic light also appeared alongside the claim about the high temperatures: alongside   Although this image was taken in Kuwait, it dated back to 2013 and showed a street light that reportedly melted due to a nearby car fire. 2013 reportedly One final image was circulated as "evidence" that temperatures had reached 62C in Kuwait:   According to the Kuwait Times, however, this image was manipulated. Meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, explained that the temperature has never reached 62C in Kuwait and that such reports were just "fake news": explained Do not believe in fake news, warned meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, as he debunked social media reports that temperatures in Kuwait reached 62 degrees. It is fake news  not true, Saadoun told Kuwait Times. Kuwait has only recorded temperatures of a maximum of 52 degrees centigrade. Never in history has the temperature in Kuwait reached 62. As we speak now, the temperature is 49 degrees Celsius (at 2 pm yesterday), but people have been posting images of 54, 56 degrees  the temperature inside the car is higher, but not as per our weather monitoring system. Saadoun said the mercury will continue to rise in the next few days till the end of July, but by the beginning of August, the heat will start subsiding. This has been the usual weather in Kuwait. This period is called the summer solstice. This is the period when the sun is right next to us up there, and we expect such weather in July, he said. World Meteorological Organization.  "High Temperatures and Extreme Weather Continue."
  7 July 2017. Chand, Eudore.  "Shrubs, Palm in GCC on Fire Due to Heat? Watch Videos."
  Emirates 247.  7 August 2017. Garcia, Ben.  "62 Degrees Centigrade Temperature Untrue, Fake News."
  Kuwait Times.  2 July 2017. In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities. May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an expos of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart. A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a "pay-for-play" scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation  The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security  uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at closer to one-tenth of the United States' uranium production capacity in 2017)  thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. one-tenth During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million, Schweizer claimed in Clinton Cash. Among those who followed Schweizer in citing the transaction as an instance of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: speech Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20% of Americas uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Trump's campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton "gave American uranium rights to the Russians": press release ad  An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, "So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?"   The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton's to Veto or ApproveAmong the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.  nine law All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton "never intervened" in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn't personally involved. said said There Is No Evidence That Uranium Went to Russia That a change of company ownership occurred doesn't mean that 10 to 20 percent of America's uranium literally went to Russia. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom's mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries. Some exports did occur, however. A 2015 letter from NRC official Mark Satorius to a member of Congress revealed that an unspecified amount of yellowcake (semi-processed) uranium was shipped from a Uranium One facility in Wyoming to Canada between 2012 and 2014 for conversion (additional processing to prepare it for enrichment). A portion of that uranium was subsequently shipped to enrichment plants in Europe. letter The transfers to Canada were legal despite Uranium One's not holding an export license because the NRC granted such a license to the company that transported it. The transfers to Europe were legal because they were approved by another agency, the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Satorius stressed that the transfers were subject to NRC oversight and all applicable safety and national security regulations: Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services  or any other export license or license amendment  the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements. Additionally, a small amount of that exported uranium was, in fact, sold to other countries. According to a 2 November 2017 article in The Hill, Uranium One officials acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of the yellowcake exported for conversion was subsequently sold via "book transfer" to customers in Western Europe and Asia (yellowcake being a fungible commodity, that doesn't necessarily translate to a physical transfer of the product, however). article To date, there is no evidence that any of this uranium made its way to Russia. An NRC spokesman cited by FactCheck.org in October 2017 reaffirmed Satorius's assurances that "the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia." NRC officials also say they're unaware of any Uranium One exports from the U.S. to foreign countries since 2014. cited The Timing of Most of the Clinton Foundation Donations Does Not MatchOf the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share  $131.3 million  came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.  came sold off Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times  Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company's chairman: according His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he said.  In addition to the Clinton Foundation donations, the New York Times also cited a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former president Bill Clinton by a Russian investment bank in June 2010, before the Uranium One deal was approved: The $500,000 fee  among Mr. Clinton's highest  was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was "the best play" in the uranium markets. The timing of Telfers Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton's Renaissance Capital speaking fee might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary  that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction. Foundation Admits to Disclosure MistakesOne fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation's practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed  specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells: pledged discussion It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors. Such awkward collisions between Bills fundraising activities and Hillarys public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more. At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it's crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it  however little that may be. Update On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval  information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony "indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clintons charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal. reported On 24 October 2017, the U.S. House intelligence and oversight committees announced the launch of a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Russian purchase of Uranium One. announced Becker, Jo and McIntire, Mike."Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal."
The New York Times.23 April 2015. Becker, Jo and Van Natta Jr., Don."After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton."
The New York Times.31 January 2008. Diamond, Jeremy and Collinson, Stephen."Trump: Clinton Is a 'World-Class Liar.'"
CNN.22 June 2016. Giustra, Frank."Statement of Frank Giustra."
Geo.ca.25 April 2015. Grimaldi, James V., Ballhaus, Rebecca, and Nicholas, Peter."Gifts to Hillary Clintons Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book."
The Wall Street Journal.22 April 2015. Herb, Jeremy.  "House Republicans Investigating Obama-Era Uranium Deal."
 CNN.  24 October 2017. Hirsh, Michael."Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure."
Politico.25 April 2015. Kessler, Glenn.  "The Repeated, Incorrect Claim that Russia Obtained '20 Percent' of Our Uranium."
 The Washington Post.  31 October 2017. Kiely, Eugene. "The Facts on Uranium One."
FactCheck.org. 1 November 2017. McElveen, Josh.  "CloseUP Rewind: Hillary Clinton's First 1-on-1 Interview Since Declaring."
 WMUR.  27 July 2016. Pilkington, Ed."Clinton Cash: Errors Dog Bill and Hillary Expos  but Is There any 'There' There?"
The Guardian.5 May 2015. Qiu, Linda.  "Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid to Approve Russia Uranium Deal."
PolitiFact.30 June 2016. Robertson, Lori."Fact Check: Trump's False 'Corruption' Claim."
NBC News.25 October 2015. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison.  "FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Administration Approved Controversial Nuclear Deal with Moscow."
 The Hill.  17 October 2017. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison. "Uranium One Deal Led to Some Exports to Europe, Memos Show."
The Hill. 2 November 2017. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "NRC Approves Transfer of Control of Uranium Recovery Licenses to Russian Firm."
 24 November 2010. U.S. Dept. of Treasury."The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)."
20 December 2012. Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill. Updated [1 November 2017]: Added clarifications, more sources, and the announcement of a congressional investigation. Correction [16 November 2017]: Previous versions of this article incorrectly stated that no Uranium One-produced uranium had been exported to foreign countries.