Was the Oval Office Trashed During the Capitol Riot?
On Jan. 7, 2021, a day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., a picture started circulating on social media that supposedly showed damage done to the Oval Office:   This is not a genuine photograph of a desecrated Oval Office, and the picture predates the riot. It should also be noted that the Oval Office is located in the White House, not the Capitol. While the Capitol was vandalized during the riot, no damage was done to the White House.  The above-displayed picture has been circulating online since at least November 2020 when it was shared on social media along with messages mocking U.S. President Donald Trump in the wake of his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden.  This image was created by Nick den Boer, an animator, director, and digital artist who posts on social media under the handle @smearballz. This image, along with three others depicting a tarnished Oval Office, was originally posted on Twitter on Nov. 8, 2020, (the day after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election) along with the caption: "Aftermath." Nick den Boer declared the winner  Another set of similar images depicting a trashed Oval Office was posted to @Smearballs Instagram page in November 2019. Den Boer explained to us that the above-displayed images are all 3D models of the Oval Office.  Instagram page While this is a digital creation that does not depict any actual damage done to the Oval Office, the Capitol was truly vandalized during a mob riot that included the deaths of five people. deaths of five people NBC News reported: reported Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters swarmed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, leaving the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices. Among the wreckage were pieces of broken furniture, battered doors and heaps of trash littering the hallway floors. A thick film of dust and tear gas residue remained throughout the building that contains the Senate and the House of Representatives. Stolen and damaged items were reported in elected officials' offices, including the wood and gold placard above House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. Updated [8 January 2021]: Article updated to credit the original artist.
In September 2018, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising a "Get $75 off any purchase of $80 or more" coupon offer for the Publix supermarket chain:  Later in July 2019, an $80 version also made the rounds:  These posts were the latest iterations of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media.   Publix has previously taken to social media to warn customers that these coupon offers are not authorized promotions and to advise customers not to visit sites promoting them: social media  These fake coupon offers are a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code: Instead, they were asked to fill out a survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users are also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook. If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau listed key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.  Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.  When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.  Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card."
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014.
 9 July 2019: Updated to add a new $80 coupon version of the Publix Facebook scam. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.     : Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. On 5 September 2017, the Facebook page "Babies Are Beautiful" (@babofficial) posted a story accompanied by a photograph of a crying doctor. The narrative, purportedly penned by the unnamed doctor, told of a woman who gave birth under highly implausible medical circumstances, only to die after her child was delivered: @babofficial posted Today is the saddest day of my life. As a Doctor, I have handled so many pregnant women in Labour and every time am in the delivery room I always pray to God to bless all mothers. The pain women go through in the delivery room is undescribable and this does not include the 9 months they spent carrying the baby. They go through a lot just to bring forth new life. Today I cried bitterly because I lost a woman, we don't pray for things like this to happen but sometimes God may have other plans. Why is this woman's case so painful? She has been barren for 14 years! We have tried IVF & so many method known to man, the woman went through a lot. Finally God blessed her, it was way beyond science and human knowledge. She just got pregnant despite the fact she has ovarian cyst and huge load of fibroids, brethren she got pregnant. Her fibroid started melting and everything was OK, I know that's God, he will do things just to show off his glory and awesomeness. After 9 months, it was time, her husband rushed her to the hospital and quickly I left everything that I was doing and attended to her. She laboured for hours, after 7 hours, it was so painful so we decided to open her up. We lost her but the baby was alive,. Before her death, she held the baby in her arms and smiled "God is great" and then she gave up the ghost. I was devastated and sad, I went to broke the news to her husband myself, upon hearing the news, her husband fainted, their happy day just turned sour. We lost a live just to deliver a new life today. Please respect women because they pass through the valley of death to bring life. Respect your wife! Carrying your baby for 9 months is no jokes and labouring for hours to give birth to your children is a huge sacrifice. I pray to God to please protect everyone reading this, especially pregnant women, please put them in your prayers. Dear husband, I repeat respect your wife because she is truly the giver of life. May God strengthen all pregnant women, you will all deliver your babies like the women of Hebrew. Don't ignore this post, share to others it is very important because the women in our lives should be worshipped. Please if you are having problems with your mother and you refused to call her, I beg you to CALL HER NOW! she went through hell to give birth to you. Show some love to women, they are super. Please share. GOD BLESS WOMEN ?  In just over 24 hours, the post was shared more than half a million times.  The Facebook page that posted the tale, "Babies Are Beautiful," appeared to be affiliated with an online baby supply shop (babbyy.com) which listed a California phone number and Delaware address as its contact information. However, the babbyy.com domain was registered by an owner in Nigeria. address registered The nature of the story suggested that the tale was fabricated to rack up Facebook likes and shares. (The majority of recent posts on the page were similar "likebait" photographs, sometimes directing users to "type amen.") No details were provided about the name of the doctor or location of the hospital, and commenters who identified themselves as medical professionals were quick to point out weak spots in the story: likes type amen     Those commenters noted that, among other things, the purported patient would have been treated as high-risk and obtained a C-section, that uterine fibroids are not typically fatal, and that details of the account did not align with the actual origins of the photograph. zge Metin Photography was credited for the photograph of the crying doctor (which bears a watermark in Turkish) and posted it to Instagram on 6 September 2017. In the post's comment thread, photographer zge Metin confirmed the "Babies Are Beautiful" post was a hoax, as the father captured in the image was crying tears of joy after the birth of his healthy baby: Instagram confirmed kole.photography [link] Another stolen post. What a beautiful photo! You should get credit. elia_79 Hi is this a sad story or it is just a hoax on internet ozgemetinphotography @elia_79 This Crying Father is photo of mine, i took it. The Father was crying because his baby was born as a healthy baby. Not because his wife died, his wife did not die. This story is not true. elia_79 @ozgemetinphotography ughh thank you so much. Yes I saw that it had your picture on it that's why I looked you up in Instagram thank you so much. Great pictureozgemetinphotography@elia_79    We contacted babbyy.com and reached the owner, Alex Onyia, who told us that the photograph was not meant to depict the events in the story, which he said had been sent in by a fan of the Facebook page. He claimed that the company had reached out to photographer zge Metin on Instagram and had secured permission to use her photographs, but given the Metin's comments on Instagram, we doubt that this is the case. Onyia also maintained that the story was genuine, although he had not verified that the person who wrote it was an actual doctor: "We have featured so many similar stories over the years and all are genuine." Although sharing the false story and misused photograph posed little danger to Facebook users, it did bolster the reach of a dubious Facebook page attached to a retail outlet of unknown reliability. Claim:  Albert Einstein once declared compound interest to be "the most powerful force in the universe." UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Sangillo, 2006] There's an urban legend that Albert Einstein once said compounding [interest] is the most powerful force in the universe.  Whether or not he really said it, that line has become my financial motto. I strongly suggest you adopt it.  [Hartgill, 1997] When asked to name the greatest invention in human history, Albert Einstein simply replied "compound interest." Origins:  Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their  mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing  it's called the 17% interest rate."  Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history."  (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.) compound But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing?  The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:  The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place.  (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)  Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity."  (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.") We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch. Last updated:  19 April 2011    Calaprice, Alice.  The New Quotable Einstein.   Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-691-12074-9  (pp. 294-295). The New Quotable Einstein     Dorfman, Dan.  "Fundamental Advice, Phenomenal Success."   USA Today.  2 August 1991  (p. B4).     Hartgill, David.  "Power of Compounding."   The Advertiser.  15 September 1997.     Havemann, Judith.  "Uncle Sam's Dual Standards."   The Washington Post.  23 January 1988  (p. A1).     Langworthy, David.  "Einstein Was Right  So Is 'Wealthy Barber.'"   The Houston Chronicle.  1 June 1998  (p. A20).    Sangillo, Karen.  "All About 'Free Money' and How to Earn It."   Bucks County Courier Times.  5 November 2006.    Shapiro, Fred R.  The Yale Book of Quotations.   New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.  ISBN 0-300-10798-6  (pp. 230-231). The Yale Book of Quotations    Topolnicki, Denise M.  "How You Can Beat the Five Threats to Your Retirement."   The Buffalo News.  8 November 1993  (p. 12). We all dream of rich relatives kicking the bucket and leaving us their fortunes, which is why this "unexpected inheritance" scam works as well as it does. My name is Becky J. Harding, I am a senior partner in the firm of Midland Consulting Limited: Private Investigators and Security Consultants. We are conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of HSBC, the International Banking Conglomerate. This investigation involves a client who shares the same surname with you and also the circumstances surrounding investments made by this client at HSBC Republic, the Private Banking arm of HSBC. The HSBC Private Banking client died in testate and nominated no successor in title over the investments made with the bank. The essence of this communication with you is to request you provide us information/comments on any or all of the four issues: 1-Are you aware of any relative/relation who shares your same name whose last known contact address was Brussels Belgium?2-Are you aware of any investment of considerable value made by such a person at the Private Banking Division of HSBC Bank PLC?3-Born on the 1st of october 19414-Can you establish beyond reasonable doubt your eligibility to assume status of successor in title to the deceased? It is pertinent that you inform us ASAP whether or not you are familiar with this personality that we may put an end to this communication with you and our inquiries surrounding this personality. You must appreciate that we are constrained from providing you with more detailed information at this point. Please respond to this mail as soon as possible to afford us the opportunity to close this investigation. Thank you for accommodating our enquiry. Becky J. Harding.For: Midland Consulting Limited.09/02/2004 Imagine being transformed overnight from office drudge to a member of the jet set  it's the stuff of daydreams! (or at least the impetus to buy lottery tickets). Because this urge for the big "something for nothing" runs so deep in us, it makes us vulnerable to the machinations of con men, which is what these e-mailed come-ons areabout.This scam has been part of the grifters' bag of tricks for many a year. It was only a matter of time before it began showing up on the Internet, where those who make their livings by defrauding others have an even easier time vending their cons to the unwary. Though the text quoted above as our example is one of the more common forms this sort of come-on takes in the wilds of cyberspace, the scam can be dressed out any number of ways. How it is worded is far less important than its thrust  its "hook" that you might be entitled to an inheritance you had no reason to expect was coming your way. Although the names change from e-mail to e-mail, the scam itself is immutable: potential victims receive notification they share the surname of a recently deceased person who failed to leave a will. This notification purportedly comes from a representative of a firm of "Private Investigators and Security Consultants," with said representative stating he or she is "conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of[name of large financial entity, such as Barclays or HSBC]." Recipients of those e-mails are then asked three or four questions along the lines of the following: How the about-to-be-scammed answer the questions is unimportant  the queries are there merely to lend a patina of legitimacy to the inquiry. Regardless of whether potential victims respond with the news that none of their relatives have been to Brussels or whether they claim great-uncles whom the family subsequently lost track of after they settled there, the game is now afoot. In either case, they will be assured there is a very real chance significant inheritances are about to come their way, provided one small insignificant detail is first taken care of: payment of a fee to advance the matter. Similar to the Nigerian Scam and the foreign lottery fraud, the promise of untold wealth is used to distract the overly trusting away from the sorry fact that they are being asked to send money. In all three cases, the con works the same way: after being mesmerized by the vision of riches to come, those being taken advantage of are required to open their wallets and whip out their checkbooks to bring about the happy event. Nigerian Scam lottery There is no dead Uncle Fred, no rich deceased Reese. It's all a lie told to part you from your cash. So far we've seen versions of this scam emanating from supposed private investigating firms named Cappa Consultants, Midland Consulting Limited, and De Rosenberg Consulting, but the names the fraud artists choose to adopt for the purpose of parting the unwary from their money are unimportant; it's all a con. The names of genuine banking concerns (such as HSBC and Barclays) are dragged into the fray willy-nilly by the ill-intentioned to make the matter look more credible, but these real entities have nothing to do with the con. Indeed, as one official at HSBC responded to a query about these supposed windfall inheritances: It has come to our attention that a variation on an email is being circulated that has no connection to HSBC Republic. The email claims that HSBC Republic has employed investigators to contact the family of a deceased client who died intestate. To our knowledge such claims have no validity and we strongly recommend that recipients of such emails do not respond to the sender. Regards Web AdministrationHSBC Republic In another form of the scam, folks are contacted through regular mail by "estate locators" who say those receiving their notices are named beneficiaries of unclaimed family inheritances. Recipients are lured into mailing fees for estate reports, which will supposedly explain where their inheritances are located and how they can be claimed. These "estate locators" may also offer to process claims against these estates for a fee. It does occasionally happen someone so contacted does eventually find he or she has a right to claim against the estate of a distant relative who died without leaving a will. But in those cases, the amount garnered generally proves not to have been worth going after (indeed, often less than what was paid to the "locator" for the information). Estates do hire actual "heir locators" to find missing beneficiaries, but those so engaged are paid by the estate, not by the folks they find. There are also heir locators who freelance on a contingency basis, entering into agreements with those they connect with their rightful inheritances for percentages of sums so recovered. While this might sound like the scam being described above it's not  these legitimate heir locators receive payment only after estates are settled and heirs so found have received their bequests. Ergo, if a "locator" is asking you to pay up front, it's a scam. Those still clinging to the hope that there might still be something to their pie-in-the-sky e-mail, that hints at a life of luxury are just in the offing, should pause to consider that professionals in the process of contacting legitimate heirs do so through recognizable law firms, with the contact coming in the form of an actual letter (as opposed to an e-mail) on that firm's letterhead. We find it somewhat amusing that "intestate" (meaning to die without leaving a will) is so often mis-rendered in the e-mails distributed by the defrauders: it either comes out as "in testate" or as "interstate" (which we presume means to die between two highways). What You Can Do: Additional information:  Phony Inheritance Scam  (United States Postal Service) Phony Inheritance Scam  (United States Postal Service) Last updated:  27 November 2011   Choney, Suzanne.  "Key Flaws Reveal Truth Behind New E-Mail Hoax."Copley News Service.  7 July 2003. Bangor Daily News.  "Be Wary of Inheritance Notifications."2 February 2004  (p. A5). President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:  Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent  This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Jesse Shedd is wanted by the police for beating an autistic woman named Ashley Hamilton.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, April 2013] WANTED BY THE LAW - TABITHA ADKINS AND JESSE SHEDD If you know the whereabouts of these criminals, please report this to your local police immediately, or post a comment on this blog or on Facebook. I see too many posts on Facebook about monsters who abuse and kill the innocent. We must not be silent. Silence implies consent. If you can stop a monster, you have to do your part - or you become an "accomplice after the fact" and share the guilt for the crime.  We need everyone help to find these two there names are Tabitha Adkins and Jesse Shedd. They brutally beat this sweet little girl, Ashley who is autistic and handicapped and uses a wheelchair. Please everyone report this so they can be brought to justice. Origins:  According to information posted on the Facebook site Justice for Ashley Hamilton, an autistic young woman by that name was "severely beaten by her caregivers" on 3 April 2013 (just three days before her 22nd birthday).  Atlanta television station WIXI reported on the case, noting that: Justice for Ashley Hamilton  The Rabun County Sheriff's Office is investigating the possibility that a wheelchair-bound woman was assaulted. The victim, 21-year-old Ashley Hamilton, suffered extensive injuries to her head and face. Police found her at Raco's Sports Bar in Clayton on Apr. 3. Rabun County Sheriff Frank Andrews said investigators think Hamilton was left in the care of family friends while her mother was out of town. The victim suffers from disabilities and must use a wheelchair. Andrews said Hamilton may have sustained her injuries on Apr. 2. A home health professional said she told the victim's mother, Kelly Hamilton, to take the young woman to the hospital, but Ashley Hamilton did not receive medical attention until police and EMS found her at the sports bar. No arrests have been made, but Andrews said the sheriff's office has several persons of interest. They are trying to determine when and how Hamilton was injured. "We must be diligent in our efforts to find as much tangible evidence as possible since our victim is not in a position to tell us what happened to her," Andrews said in a statement. "It is in the interest of justice to see that no stone is left unturned." Atlanta television station WAGA has also reported that police were  investigating the case: Authorities are investigating after a 22-year-old autistic woman was brutally attacked in Rabun County. Kelly Hamilton says she was out of town when she learned about injuries to her daughter Ashley's feet and face.   "Her mouth was busted and her tooth was knocked out," Hamilton said. Family members say the autistic woman is developmentally on par with a 2-year-old child. They don't know who is responsible and say they remain stunned anyone could or would harm the helpless woman.  "The night I got home, there was no swelling or any bruising on her eye that had shown up. The doctors said that it would take 24 hours for  bruising to develop," Kelly Hamilton said.  After family members reported the attack, doctors treated Ashley Hamilton for those bruises. She spent a birthday in the hospital. Authorities are investigating the beating. Authorities say while Kelly Hamilton was out of town, Ashley stayed with family friends.  Family members say they hope that investigation leads to an arrest for an attack on a woman who can't fight back.  "She's a beautiful little girl who can't defend herself and she's brutally beaten up here and I just want justice for her," said Kelly Hamilton.  Rabun County authorities say that they are gathering details in the case. The Clayton Tribune posted on their Facebook page on 5 April 2013 that: Facebook page In regard to the widely circulated photo on our Facebook page and beyond of an alleged beaten girl, we confirmed [yesterday] with the Rabun County Sheriffs Department that there is an open investigation. There are currently no other official updates, but we will provide news updates as we have them.   On 17 April 2013, WAGA reported that seven people, including Ashley's mother and Jesse Shedd, were facing charges in connection with the case: Jesse Shedd Seven people are facing charges in connection to the alleged beating of an autistic woman.  Now, the victim's mother and other family members responsible for her care have been arrested.   Kelly Hamilton says the charges of disabled person abuse against her are unfounded.  Hamilton says she was out of town when a family friend severely beat her 22-year-old daughter, Ashley.  Authorities also charged Richard Foss, Hamilton's fianc, with reckless conduct.   "They're saying the reason for the charges are because we didn't immediately call the night we got home to see her in that condition, but that condition wasn't visible until the next day," said Hamilton.  "They said 24 hours later the bruises would show after a beating to her head."  "Besides the cut on her lip and a broken tooth, those were the only visible signs the night we arrived," Foss said. Authorities have also charged five other people in the case.  Deputies say one family friend who cared for Ashley, 28-year-old Jesse Terrell Shedd, faces charges of battery and disabled person abuse for actually hitting the severely autistic woman.   "During that two hour timeframe, we don't know to what extent the abuse occurred, but the facts and circumstances led us to believe he did inflict substantial visible bodily injury on Ashley Hamilton," said Rabun County Sheriff's Office chief investigator Gerald Johnson.   Last updated:  17 April 2013    Carver, Darryl.  "Mom, Six Others Charged in Attack on Autistic Woman."   WAGA-TV [Atlanta].  17 April 2013.    Sawicki, Beth.  "Disabled Woman in Wheelchair Possibly Assaulted."   WIXI-TV [Atlanta].  8 April 2013. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. ... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True. A photograph dating from 1948 depicting an apparent show of "charity" on the part of the Ku Klux Klan towards an elderly black couple in Alabama continues to circulate online, although details behind the actual encounter are sparse. The photograph shows 106-year-old Jack Riddle and his wife, Rosie, both former slaves, seated in front of a group of Klansmen (including one dressed as Santa Claus), flanking a radio the group had reportedly given to the couple as a gift:  The image, which was published in newspapers in California and Pennsylvania (among other states), has resurfaced periodically on social media platforms, although it is typically accompanied by little in the way of information about how and why the Klansmen approached the Riddles with their "gift."  John Giggie, an associate professor of history at the University of Alabama, told us that the photograph is "the type of image that Klan members would dream of" at the time: It captures the Klan fantasy of returning to a time when black Americans were enslaved and white Americans could lord over them with impunity. The given year of the image is important -- 1948 -- as it marks the emergence of the Dixiecrats, who left the Democratic Party in 1948 over its rising interest in civil rights. In that context, the photo functions as a warning to blacks and those who would support them in their freedom struggle. Giggie added that the photograph also "screams hyperbole": The idea of former slaves literally clasping the hands of a Klansmen  dressed as Santa Claus, no less -- and sitting next to a radio seems to create a studied photo in which the Klan is merging examples of American modernity with those of its enslaved past. There is also the nagging sense that this is simply an absurd parody of Klan bravado. The idea of former slaves sitting with Klansmen seems to at least suggest a mockery of Klan pretensions of power and acceptance. Time magazine also published a brief item about the pictured meeting on 3 January 1949 under the heading "Manners and Morals:" published In Talladega, Ala., a white-hooded delegation of Ku Kluxers and a white-bearded Santa Claus presented a radio to Jack Riddle, a 107-year-old Negro and his wife, Josey, 86, so they could have their wish, to "hear the preachers." Grand Dragon Samuel Green explained that this demonstrated the "heart of a Klansman," called in photographers to take the most incongruous picture of the week.  A separate photograph of the encounter was collected in the book From the Picture Press, published by the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1973: collected  The museum's caption for the photograph stated that Green and his cohorts "publicized the 'good will' visit ten days before it occurred." However, at least one related clipping posted online has, at the very least, been misattributed. Some blog posts concerning the Riddles' photograph cite a brief op-ed attributed to the Milwaukee Journal newspaper on 26 December 1948: Because the klan's professions and practices vary so much, we suggest that northerners maintain a healthy skepticism about any regeneration of the klan. It will take more than pretty words, and a few gifts to Negroes, to wipe out the record of terror, intimidation and violence that has been synonymous with the name klan. And as for that radio gift to Jack Riddle, the klan's good will toward the Negro will be more convincing when it is concerned with the welfare, the education and the civil rights of all Negroes. The problem of Jack Riddle not having a radio set is only a very small part of the over-all picture of the Negro in the south.  In 1995, the Journal merged with the Milwaukee Sentinel to become the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. When we contacted that successor newspaper regarding the 1948 clipping, assistant managing editor for visual journalism Sherman Williams told us that "This article does not appear in the 12/26/48 edition of The Milwaukee Journal. The article does not match the typography or style of the newspaper then." The photograph was also copyrighted by Getty Images, who told us that it was originally shot by a photographer from the Keystone Press Agency. At least two phone numbers listed under that name are invalid, while emails sent to addresses listed under Keystone did not produce responses prior to publication. copyrighted According to an obituary published in Jet magazine in January 1953, Jack Riddle died at the age of 111. published Time.  "Manners and Morals."
  3 January 1949. West Virginia Memories.  "Old Newspaper Articles (and Book Mentions) About American Slaves, Former Slaves, And Their Descendants (N-Z)."
  Accessed 27 November 2018. Szarkowski, John.  From the Picture Press.
  Museum of Modern Art, 1973.  ISBN 087070334X. 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 In the weeks that followed the U.S. federal government's March 2020 approval of a $2.2 trillion stimulus package  the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  to jumpstart a pandemic-broken economy, journalists and economists combed through the legislation's 247-page PDF document outlining who would receive the financial help. CARES 247-page PDF document Early news reports on the bill had highlighted its funding boosts to help newly unemployed Americans, small businesses facing diminished profits, health care facilities on the frontlines of fighting the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, and qualifying taxpayers by giving them one-time checks of about $1,200 (or more depending on how they filed taxes and their number of children). Then, in mid-April, more headlines focused on the intricacies of the multi-faceted policy package  including the claim that U.S. citizens married to immigrants wouldn't qualify for the one-time payments like other taxpayers. intricacies the claim The implication was that if spouses of immigrants had different marriages, they'd be richer with the federal government's help. Numerous readers contacted Snopes to investigate the truth behind the claim. For our examination, we first looked at where the claim originated. On April 20, the Los Angeles Times published a news story headlined, "These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants," featuring stories of four couples, each of which includes an immigrant and will not be receiving the payments, as well as commentary from immigrant-rights advocates. The following day, CBS News published a story that cited the LA Times' reporting. Then, on April 22, Yahoo!'s lifestyle section republished an article from the so-called ScaryMommy website, a self-proclaimed source of "entertainment and information for millennial moms online." The post included editorialized phrasing, such as: These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants story Yahoo!'s lifestyle an article ScaryMommy "They just hate immigrants, and now, by default, American citizens who associate with them," the Scary Mommy post read, referring to the federal administration under U.S. President Donald Trump. "The government is leaving those people (and their families) out of help, and its heartbreaking." A rush of tweets, some lacking important context, followed. Among sharers of the LA Times story was U.S. Sen. Claire Celsi, a Democrat from Iowa, who said on Twitter:   Responding to her tweet, however, one user wrote: "I'm an immigrant. My wife is a US citizen. We got $2,400 as a direct deposit on April 15th. This is no less misleading than posting 'immigrants commit crimes.' It's technically true, but there is no causal link." one user Cue this fact check on who is and isn't eligible for the stimulus checks, called Economic Impact Payments, based on 2019 or 2018 tax returns. For those who are eligible, the CARES Act authorized the federal government to send: Additionally, for single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the payments by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families).  But to qualify, a recipient must be a "U.S. citizen, permanent resident or qualifying resident alien" under guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service. The latter two categorizations cover foreign-born residents who have obtained green cards to prove their legal status to work and live in the country and Social Security Numbers (SSN). The provision in the CARES Act outlining the payments states: Internal Revenue Service   That means immigrants who do not have legal status are excluded from the stimulus payments, even if they have work visas or use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (which the IRS issues to workers without SSN) to pay annual taxes. Additionally, if they file joint tax returns with their spouses, both parties are ineligible for the checks; the CARES Act's provisions require both parties on a couple's return to have SSN and will not accept joint returns with one or more Individual Taxpayer ID numbers. (Different standards apply to military couples, however: "If either spouse is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at any time during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid SSN," according to the IRS.) According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research center, roughly 1.2 million immigrants without green cards are married to a U.S. citizen. Of that amount, the spouses who are U.S. citizens and filed single tax returns  regardless of their partner's immigration status  qualify to receive an individualized payment amount based on their income. Migration Policy Institute Given that significant caveat, as well as the fact that immigrants with green cards are eligible for the checks, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and false  U.S. citizens who filed joint tax returns with spouses who are immigrants without Social Security Numbers won't receive the payments, but spouses to immigrants with legal status will. H.R.748 CARES Act.  All ActionsH.R.748 116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov. Accessed 20 April 2020. Marfice, Christina. "U.S. Citizens Married To Immigrants Are Blocked From Getting Stimulus Checks".
 Yahoo!life. 22 April 2020. Marfice, Christina. "U.S. Citizens Married To Immigrants Are Blocked From Getting Stimulus Checks".
 ScaryMommy. 22 April 2020. Jarvie, Jenny. "These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants".
 Los Angeles Times. 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic Impact Payment Information Center".
 Accessed 24 April 2020. Migration Policy Institute. "Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States".
 Accessed 24 April 2020.