No, Biden Transition Team Wasn't 'Removed' from Pentagon for Leaking Intel to China
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In late December 2020, social media users shared a meme claiming that the transition team for U.S. President-elect Joe Biden was "removed" from the Pentagon for leaking intelligence to the Chinese government:   The text of the meme reads: Last week the Biden transition team was removed from the Pentagon and now we know why. The Secretary of Defense gave disinformation to the Biden team about Naval movements in the South China Sea. Within 30 minutes the intel was leaked to the CCP. Anyone that is okay with this needs to have their head checked. Biden is in bed with China. Notably, the meme didn't include any evidence to support its claims  and there is no evidence that Biden's team was "removed" from the Pentagon or had leaked any intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party, the ruling political party in China. Had such a stunning event actually happened, we'd doubtlessly see mainstream news coverage. We found no credible news reports that the incoming presidential administration leaked intelligence to China, which would be a bombshell report. In fact, it's been an ongoing issue that outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump has not only refused to admit his electoral loss in the Nov. 3, 2020, election, but his administration has also demonstrated an unprecedented lack of cooperation with the incoming administration. cooperation On Dec. 18, 2020, Axios reported that Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller had "ordered a Pentagon-wide halt to cooperation with the transition of President-elect Biden, shocking officials across the Defense Department," citing "senior administration officials." reported Miller said in a statement that his staff had been cooperating, and would continue to do so after a "mutually-agreed upon holiday pause." Biden's team responded by stating Miller's comments were false and that they had never agreed on a holiday break in transition meetings. statement Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a Dec. 29, 2020, interview with NPR that Trump's political appointees have continued to obstruct the transition process and haven't turned over vital information pertaining to things like a massive Russian cyberattack against American government agencies or plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to the American public. interview Biden called the lack of cooperation from the Trump administration "nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility." called
First introduced in Congress in 2001 and last revisited in 2017, the so-called DREAM Act (which stands for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) was aimed at providing a path to permanent residency in the United States for children of undocumented immigrants. Every attempt to pass the legislation has failed to date, as politicians continue to kick the can down the road to the next administration. DREAM Act However, in June 2012, the DREAM Act begat DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), an executive action signed by President Obama that allowed qualified undocumented minors to apply for work permits and protection from deportation. To be eligible, applicants had to be under the age of 31, must have arrived in the U.S. before turning 16, lived in the country continuously since 2007, be enrolled in school or possess the equivalent of a high school diploma, and never been convicted of a serious crime. DACA By the time the Trump administration rescinded the program in September 2017 (on the spurious grounds that it was an abuse of executive power), an estimated 800,000 people  most of them under the age of 25  had applied for DACA protection. In honor of the ill-fated DREAM Act, and to reflect that they have a dream of someday becoming citizens, they have come to be known as "Dreamers." rescinded 800,000 With DACA gone, the Dreamers' future once again rests with Congress. Members of both parties have vowed to pass legislation granting them protections comparable to DACA's, an idea supported by the majority of the American people. Even President Trump backs the effort, having suggested to the New York Times that Dreamers be given a path to citizenship: supported suggested Over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they work hard, that gives incentive to do a great job. Whatever they're doing, if they do a great job, I think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of, after a period of years, being able to become a citizen.  A vocal minority opposes that idea, however, and some of its detractors have taken to social media to spread anti-Dreamer (and other anti-immigrant) propaganda. One example making the rounds on Facebook consists of a list of so-called "fun facts" intended to persuade readers that Dreamers are bad people and any government efforts to help them amount to a "scam":   These two groups differ not only in size, but also in attributes such as how well educated their members are and how many have criminal records. This is because DACA imposed strict requirements in those areas. For purposes of this fact check, we're defining "Dreamers" as those who actually enrolled in the DACA program between 2012 and 2017. We've chosen this route for two reasons: one, it has been, to date, the working definition used by major news and polling organizations such as the New York Times, Associated Press, and the Pew Research Center; and two, in the single instance where we determined that the "Dreamers fun facts" meme reported a statistic accurately (the military participation of Dreamers), it pertained (and only makes sense if it pertains) to the group of actual DACA enrollees, not the larger DACA-eligible group. (Barring a change in regulations, non-DACA undocumented immigrants cannot enlist in the military.) Associated Press CLAIM: "792,000 Dreamers (88 percent) are over 25 years old." STATUS: False. Only about 280,000 (35 percent) of the 800,000 Dreamers who were active DACA recipients as of September 2017 were over 25 years old. None are older than 36 because of the age-of-entry requirements imposed by DACA. The average age of Dreamers is 24. [Source: Pew Research Center] Pew Research Center CLAIM: "900 Dreamers (less than 1 percent) serve in our military." STATUS: True.  Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants aren't allowed to join the U.S. military, so this statistic can only apply to DACA enrollees, who were granted special permission to enlist in 2014. granted As of September 2017, there were close to 900 Dreamers serving in the military thanks to that program, according to the Pentagon. That is less than .1 percent of all DACA recipients. For comparison, according to a USA Today report .4 percent of the general population currently serves in the military. [Sources: USA Today; Pew Research Center] USA Today Pew Research Center CLAIM: "743,000 Dreamers (83 percent) do not have a college degree." STATUS: False. In a 2017 survey of approximately 3,000 Dreamers, the portion of those aged 25 or older who said they hold a four-year college degree (or higher) was close to 35 percent. That means 65 percent (approximately 520,000) do not yet have a college degree. Comparing that to the larger U.S. population, 2015 census figures say that roughly 32 percent of Americans 25 or older have a least a four-year college degree (meaning 68 percent do not). [Sources: T. Wong DACA Survey; U.S. Census Bureau] survey T. Wong DACA Survey U.S. Census Bureau CLAIM: "189,000 Dreamers dropped out of high school early (That is roughly 21 percent)." STATUS: False. The only statistic we were able to find comparable to this applied not to Dreamers, but to the larger population of potentially DACA-eligible immigrants. According to a 2014 study, roughly 20 percent of those aged 19 or older had not completed high school or the equivalent (as compared to a 5.9 percent high school dropout rate for the entire U.S. population). We found no such statistic for DACA enrollees, who in any case would have been required under government guidelines to be "currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States." [Sources: Migration Policy Institute; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; National Center for Education Statistics] Migration Policy Institute U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Center for Education Statistics CLAIM: "9,000 Dreamers (1 percent) are incarcerated." STATUS: False We were unable to find any sources documenting the claim that 9,000 Dreamers are (or were) incarcerated. It may be that the 1 percent figure was loosely derived from a Cato Institute policy brief which said that the incarceration rate among the 1.1 to 1.9 million immigrants who were otherwise DACA-eligible in 2015 was .98 percent. (What's most interesting about that figure is that it's actually a lower incarceration rate than that of the native-born population, according to the Cato Institute). brief The closest comparable statistic we found for actual DACA enrollees came from an accounting by USCIS of the number of those whose "deferred action" status was terminated between 2012 and 2017 due to criminal convictions or arrests: 2,030 (or approximately .25 percent of the entire Dreamer population). [Sources: Cato Institute; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] Cato Institute CLAIM: "657,000 Dreamers (73 percent) receive some form of welfare." STATUS: False. By law, undocumented immigrants (including DACA recipients) are not eligible for means-tested welfare benefits such as cash assistance, food stamps, or Medicaid. Under a provision of DACA, enrollees who reached retirement age after having worked and paid taxes in the United States for at least 10 years could have qualified for Social Security and Medicare benefits. [Source: National Immigration Law Center] law National Immigration Law Center It is important in policymaking matters to carefully weigh the facts and how populations will be affected. One can only hope that those same legislators do not govern by meme. Bier, David. "Five Myths About DACA."
The Washington Post. 7 September 2017. Broder, Tanya, Moussavian, Avideh, and Blazer Jonathan. "Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs."
National Immigration Law Center. December 2015. Chishti, Muzaffar and Bolter, Jessica. "Trump Administration Rescinds DACA, Fueling Renewed Push in Congress and the Courts to Protect Dreamers."
 Migration Policy Institute. 15 September 2017. Dickerson, Caitlin. "What Is DACA? Who Are the Dreamers? Here Are the Basics."
The New York Times. 23 January 2018. Gonzalez, Roberto, et al. "Taking Giant Leaps Forward."
Center for American Progress. 22 June 2017. Greenwood, Max. "Poll: Nearly 9 in 10 Want DACA Recipients to Stay in U.S."
The Hill. 18 January 2018. Haberman, Maggie, Rogers, Katie, and Shear, Michael. "Trump Says He Is Open to a Path to Citizenship for 'Dreamers.'"
The New York Times. 24 January 2018. Horton, Alex. "The Military Looked to 'Dreamers' to Use Their Vital Skills. Now the U.S. Might Deport Them."
The Washington Post. 7 September 2017. Kessler, Glenn. "The Debate Over DACA: A Guide to the Numbers Used by Politicians."
The Washington Post. 23 January 2018. Korte, Gregory, Gomez, Alan, and Johnson, Kevin. "Trump Administration Struggles With Fate of 900 Dreamers Serving in the Military."
USA Today. 7 September 2017. Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "DACA Has Shielded Nearly 790,000 Young Unauthorized Immigrants From Deportation."
Pew Research Center. 1 September 2017. Landgrave, Michelangelo and Nowraster, Alex. "The Dreamer Incarceration Rate."
Cato Institute. 30 August 2017. Lopez, Gustavo and Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "Key Facts About Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA."
Pew Research Center. 25 September 2017. McHugh, Margie. "Diploma, Please: Promoting Educational Attainment for DACA- and Potential DREAM Act-Eligible Youth."
Migration Policy Institute. September 2014. Ryan, Camille L. and Bauman, Kurt. "Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015."
U.S. Census Bureau. March 2016. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: An Overview."
Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. Wong, Tom K. "New Study of DACA Beneficiaries Shows Positive Economic and Educational Outcomes."
Center for American Progress. 18 October 2016. Wong, Tom K., et al. "DACA Recipients' Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow."
Center for American Progress. 28 August 2017. Zong, Jie, et al. "A Profile of Current DACA Recipients by Education, Industry, and Occupation."
Migration Policy Institute. November 2017. National Center for Education Statistics. "Dropout Rates."
Accessed 25 January 2018. National Immigration Law Center. "DACA and DAPA Access to Federal Health and Economic Support Programs."
30 January 2015. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. "DACA Terminations Related to Criminal and Gang Activity by Fiscal Year."
2017. After rejecting Medicaid expansion in 2013, the Florida Legislature is taking a serious look at it this session. The program pays for health insurance for the very poor. On March 10, astate Senate panelapproved aproposalthat would allow Florida to accept $50 billion in federal dollars to expand coverage to about 800,000 low-income residents. The plan would establish a state-run private insurance exchange for residents who earn less than $16,000 a year or $33,000 for a family of four. Though the bill won unanimous support of the GOP-dominated Senate Health Policy Committee, it faces an uphill battle in the more conservative House. Also, it would require the federal government to grant Florida a waiver. The feds might object to parts of the Senate proposal that require beneficiaries to pay a monthly premium based on their salary, ranging from $3 to $25. During the Senate hearing, the Florida Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Mark Wilson said he had met with legislators to discuss the chambers ideas for a Medicaid proposal. We recommended a 32 percent cap on state expenditures, we are coming close to 30 percent right now, he said. It's the biggest expenditure at the state and wed like to protect taxpayers with a 32 percent cap. Does Medicaid come close to eating up nearly one-third of the state budget and is it the states biggest expenditure? Medicaid and the state budget Medicaid is a joint state and federal program aimed at providing health insurance to the very poor. The 2010 Affordable Care Act encourages states to expand eligibility and agreed to pay 100 percent of the expansion for the first three years, declining to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.Twenty nine statesadopted the expansion -- six including Florida are considering it, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Republican Gov. Rick Scott initially opposed Medicaid expansion butswitched his positionin 2013 when he came out in support of it. But Scott didnt lobby the GOP-led Legislature, which ultimately rejected the expansion. In 2014, Democratic challenger Charlie Crist attacked Scott for not pushing for it and argued it would have led toincreased jobsin Florida. Edie Ousley, a spokeswoman for the chamber, sent PolitiFact Florida state budget documents, as well as information from groups such as Florida TaxWatch, to show how much of the budget is devoted to Medicaid. We also examined documents we received from the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research. The original 2014-15 Medicaid appropriation was$23.6 billionfrom all state and federal funds. The total budget for all funds was about $77.08 billion, which means that Medicaid accounts for about 30.6 percent of the budget. On March 4, the state released its latest revision for how much is needed for Medicaid this year and concluded it was $23.52 billion -- about 55 percent is federal dollars and 45 percent is state money. For all funds, Medicaid is the largest program, Amy Baker, the states chief economist, told PolitiFact Florida. But education programs -- including K-12 and higher education -- have received on average slightly more than 52 percent of all state general revenue appropriations since 1997-98. The second-largest policy area is human services. Over this same period, the human services portion of the budget has grown from 25 percent to nearly 30 percent, primarily because of the states Medicaid program growth, Baker said. Nationwide, Medicaid accounts for about 20 percent of state general fund appropriations while K-12 accounts for about one-third, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Medicaid eats up such a large chunk of the budget due to rising health care costs and growing caseloads -- and it continues to grow at a faster rate than education spending, said Arturo Perez, fiscal affairs director for the NCSL. TheNational Association of State Budget Officersfound that if they combined state and federal spending, on average about 26 percent of states budgets were for Medicaid in 2014. When combining those federal and state dollars, there is no question it is the biggest chunk of the budget in total -- no question, said Kurt Wenner, of Florida TaxWatch. George Washington University health policy professor Leighton Ku said that as far as state-based fiscal burdens, a better measure is to focus on how much of the state general fund goes to Medicaid. That level is about 20 percent of state general fund expenditures, he said. The general fund corresponds better to what state taxpayers contribute and takes out stuff like federal revenue. Still a lot, but much lower than 31 percent. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Medicaid is a large component of state budgets, so there is reason for legislators to be concerned about the costs. But the majority of Medicaid costs that are paid by the federal government are not a burden to state taxpayers, but essentially an influx of federal funds to the state that promotes economic growth in the state, Ku said. Thus, the actual burden to state taxpayers is far less than 30 percent of their state tax dollars, he said. In terms of state/local expenditures, education costs are always much higher. Our ruling Medicaid is close to 30 percent of the state budget and the biggest expenditure at the state, Wilson said. There are two ways to look at Medicaid spending. The 30 percent figure is correct if Wilson counts both the state and federal dollars that go toward Medicaid, and it is the biggest expendituree. However, if we only count state dollars, then education eats up a bigger piece of the budget. It's important to understand that the federal government contributes to Medicaid, so the statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. Pity the poor children of the United States  they, along with their parents, are already in hock to the federal government for thousands of dollars.Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) made that claim Oct. 26 during an interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record.Every American now is $51,000 in debt, Casagrande told Aron. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.Casagrandes number is solid, but she doesnt have to worry about whipping out her checkbook or debit card any time soon, some federal budget experts say.Lets start by reviewing the two commonly cited forms of national debt -- debt held by the public and total debt.Debt held by the public is money borrowed from investors outside of the federal government. The total debt represents debt held by the public as well as money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.Now lets look at the numbers in Casagrandes claim.The U.S. Government Debt website on Nov. 6  the date we started looking into Casagrandes clam -- listed the national debt at $16,295,297,196,000. If thats divided by 314,719,484 -- the total U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau, each American owes the federal government $51,777.21.So, Casagrandes number is accurate. But should Americans actually expect to pay that bill? Not necessarily.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution who has worked as a government economist and served on federal advisory panels under presidents of both parties, explained that what the nation owes each year on the national debt is annual interest and principal payments.Do grandma and the grandkids have to pay off the national debt, as Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande seems to suggest? No, they do not, Burtless wrote. Our grandkids great grandparents did not pay off the federal debt; neither did their parents or grandparents. There is no rule that the national debt has to be paid off in one generation, three generations, or even ten generations. Taxpayers do not face the possibility that they will receive a $51,000 bill in the mail anytime soon.An invoice might not be in the mail but Casagrandes statement is fair, according to spokespeople for the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.Were not even going to pay off the debt, were going to pay down the interest, said Matt Jensen, a research associate in Economic Policy Studies at the AEI. Under no proposal that Ive seen is someone paying down the debt in real dollars. What were really talking about is paying the interest on the debt, forever. Youll pay the interest, your children will pay the interest.Our PolitiFact colleagues in Virginia and New Hampshire also looked into similar claims in their states and found that the amount of debt cited by their lawmakers was largely accurate.Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes in January said the national debt amounted to $48,700 for every American or $128,300 for every U.S. Household. Our colleagues rated the claim True.In August, PolitiFact New Hampshire rated Mostly True a claim by Rep. Frank Guinta that every child in the United States has a $50,000 share in the national debt. Guinta  received a Mostly True because that would mean each of the nations nearly 74 million children would owe $216,102. Guintas figure was accurate, however, when the debt was spread across the entire population.Our rulingCasagrande said in a television interview, Every American now is $51,000 in debt. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.A simple mathematical calculation confirms that every American technically owes the government $51,777.21 toward the national debt. But will youngsters have to suddenly start handing over their allowances to pay down the federal deficit? Not likely. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  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 lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its 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." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. Wilsonville businessman John Ludlow is in a four-way race for Clackamas County Commission Chair in next week's election. He says that he is the only candidate in the race who will refuse to join the Public Employees Retirement System.Is he the only candidate in the race to make such a promise? Perhaps just as important a question: Are elected officials even able to decline joining the retirement system?The Public Employees Retirement System is a hot-button issue with critics who claim it eats way too much money, hurting taxpayers to benefit public employees. The retirement program is open to participating employers, from the state of Oregon to school districts and cities.We turned to Paul Cleary, the retirement system's executive director. He pointed toOregon Revised Statutes 238A.100 (2): A person who is elected or appointed to an office with a fixed term ...may elect not to become a member of the pension program by giving the Public Employees Retirement Board written notice not later than 30 days after taking office. The trick here, says Cleary, is that for a person to decline membership, that person cannot have been a PERS member, ever. Ludlow is a former Wilsonville city councilor and served as Wilsonvilles mayor from 1989 to 1991, but received no retirement benefits from his time in public office.Ludlow, 63, says he has never been a member of PERS, and the Public Employees Retirement System confirms he is not a member.The other Clackamas County commission chair candidates are members of the Public Employees Retirement System. They are county Chairwoman Charlotte Lehan, county Commissioner Paul Savas, and state Rep. Dave Hunt. They cannot opt out. Savas said he never knew he could decline to join.He is the only candidate who will refuse, and who can refuse, to join PERS. We expect Ludlow to keep his promise if he wins, and we rate his statement True. Several similar items have been circulated during or since the 2008 U.S. presidential election, all suggesting (without evidence) that Barack and Michelle Obama, both of whom obtained licenses to practice law in Illinois, were forced to give up those licenses in order to avoid having them revoked through disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution. In fact, neither of the Obamas gave up their law licenses because they were facing disciplinary actions or criminal charges: Barack Obama  Editor of the Harvard Law Review  Has No Law License? I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have it's 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesnt seem to give a crap about his law license. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law. There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it. Such claims are false ones, based on misreadings of information about license status and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about such information, as detailed below: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. This lead-in was wrong on two counts: Michelle Obama does in fact have a license to practice law in Illinois (it is currently on inactive status), and she did not hold a position as legal counsel with the University of Chicago Hospitals (rather, she worked at that institution as Executive Director for Community Affairs and then Vice President for Community and External Affairs). None of her job duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals required her to have an active law license. worked She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. This passage was also wrong: Michelle Obama did not "voluntarily surrender" her law license; she requested that her license be placed on "inactive" status. The difference is crucial: a lawyer who has surrendered his law license has given it up and therefore no longer has a license, while a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license but is not currently engaged in any professional activities that require it to be active. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.  A lawyer's holding active license status can entail a number of obligations, both financial and otherwise: paying bar association fees, carrying malpractice insurance, taking continuing legal education classes, etc. Therefore, it is not uncommon for lawyers who are not in practice (i.e., do not appear in court or counsel clients) and do not expect to return to practice in the near future to request that their licenses be placed on inactive status in order to avoid these ongoing obligations. Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors: Volokh The fact that someone who doesn't actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you're not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he's a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer  as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field  even if he is no longer a member of the bar. The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is "Voluntarily inactive." This is even more common for lawyers who don't need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don't appear in court or counsel clients other than [their] employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it's pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that. The following passage included the erroneous implication that Barack Obama also gave up his law license to avoid disciplinary action: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This passage was similarly incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like his wife, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on voluntarily inactive status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to voluntarily retired. Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of a law license through the action of "surrendering" it. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization. list Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. The above passage was also not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama's licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings, and the elapsed time for searches we performed on their information was comparable to that for searches on information about other names in the Illinois ARDC database.   (The "Malpractice Insurance" section of Michelle Obama's license information which included a notation about her being on "court ordered inactive status" was not, as commonly misinterpreted, an indication of any wrongdoing on her part. That terminology was used simply because prior to the end of 1999, the Illinois ARDC rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.") rules So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law.  This was hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas held a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady was a position that required one. This statement was also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the "first Lawyer President and First Lady," as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former's election to the presidency. Following the unexpected firing of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson on April 25, 2023, a flurry of claims  both old and new  about the conservative commentator went viral. One long-standing assertion regarding Carson is that his mother left him only $1 in her will: unexpected firing  The claim stems from documents produced amid a multi-generational legal dispute over the inheritance of mineral rights that had been left to Lombardi by her mother. Here, Snopes explains the controversy and the basis for rating the claim  Tucker Carlson's parents were Richard Carlson and Lisa Lombardi. Lombardi, an artist described by contemporaries as a "bohemian," came from several wealthy "pioneer families," including a man, Henry Miller, dubbed the "The Cattle King." At the time of Miller's death in 1916, he owned 3 million acres of rangeland in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. described pioneer families  Her family's ownership of this vast expanse declined over the years, but the family retained much of the land's mineral rights. In some cases, real estate transactions allow a person to sell land but retain rights to any profits generated by mining or drilling on the land. Lombardi inherited a portion of her family's mineral rights, which pay or paid out royalties in 1993, when her mother died. some cases Carlson's dad and Lombardi divorced in 1976, when Tucker was 6 years old. The elder Carlson was awarded full custody of both of their children, and Carlson had little to no relationship with his mom after the divorce. As reported ina profile of Carlson published by Insider, Lombardi "disappeared from her sons' lives," according to Carlson's childhood friends. a profile Carlson was later adopted by his father's second wife  Swanson frozen chicken heiress Patricia Swanson. adopted frozen chicken heiress Lombardi died on Oct. 14, 2011, while abroad in France with her husband. Just shy of a year later, a lawyer for Tucker and brother Buckley Carlson filed a petition in Kern County, California, for a court to rule on the succession of property owned by Lombardi. That court was entitled to rule on such a matter due to Lombardi's ownership of mineral rights in that county. on Oct. 14, 2011 With the agreement of Lombardi's surviving husband, Michael Vaughan, the court finalized a settlement ruling that Lombardi died "intestate" (without a will), and that property with mineral interests and royalty shares totaling about $129,684 would be distributed evenly between Vaughan and the two Carlson brothers. That ruling went into effect in July 2013. finalized a settlement After finding a hand-written will in 2013 leaving virtually all of her estate to Vaughn, however, Vaughan's family filed a petition in South Carolina, Lombardi's legal residence at the time of her death, to become the legal representative of Lombardi's estate and officially enter the will into probate. This handwritten document contains the instructions that Tucker and Buckley Carlson receive "one dollar each" at issue in viral claims: handwritten document  The Carlsons at firstobjected to the admission of this will into the South Carolina probate case, describing it as a potential forgery. In addition to instruction to give $1 to each of her estranged sons, the will also provided that Vaughan get all her property, including the aforementioned mineral rights: objected  The Carlsons dropped their challenge to the will's admission in South Carolina probate court. Kern County ultimately ruled that the will, while legally valid, could not affect the past distribution of settlement funds due to California probate law. ultimately ruled Copies of this will were included as exhibits in multiple attempts by Vaughn and other Lombardi family members to overrule the Kern County settlement based on several legal theories, including that the above will invalidated the previous settlement, that Lombardi never gained possession of some or all of the mineral rights in question, and that they were never part of her estate. This latter claim required lawyers for the estate of Lombardi's long-deceased mother to get involved in the dispute. Ultimately, Kern County denied these attempts, finding Vaughn bound by prior admissions in the original case and that the lack of timely admission of the will to the Kern County court was not the fault of the court system. In other words, the Carlson brothers got more than the $1 Lombardi's August 1995 will stipulated, and this decision has been affirmed several times. affirmed several times Just because the will did not affect the Kern County settlement does not mean the document is not valid or not Lombardi's authentic wishes. According to court testimony, Isabell Vaughan, one of Michael's daughters from a prior marriage, "discovered Lisa's handwritten will in Lisa's painting room and office" in the Fall of 2013. As described in an Insider profile: According described "Lisa was basically sort of a hippie and a free spirit," said one attorney who represented the Vaughan family and recalled having conversations about the case. "She was very liberal and she did not agree with Tucker's politics. But she stuck the will in the book, everyone forgot about it, and then she passed away." The Carlsons originally challenged the admission of that will in the South Carolina probate case, arguing that the will "was a forgery" and that Vaughn had already signed documents in Kern County indicating Lombardi left no will. Vaughn's lawyers hired a handwriting expert who concluded it was "highly probable" that the will was authored by Lombardi. The Carlsons voluntarily dropped their objection. originally challenged This left the admission of the will in Lombardi's South Carolina probate case without any objections or challenges. Legally speaking, then, that handwritten document is the last will and testament of Lombardi, and it effectively cut her estranged sons out of her inheritance. For that reason, the claim at issue in this story is true. In practice, however, the Kern County challenges made by Vaughan and their subsequent appeals  some of which were based in part on that will  have all been denied, and the Carlson brothers inherited a third of their estranged mothers mineral interests in spite of it. all been denied Bickel v. Carlson (In Re Estate of Vaughan), F077628 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/bickel-v-carlson-in-re-estate-of-vaughan. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. Case N0. S-l 501-PB-62045: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VOID AND VACATE ORDER DETERMINING SUCCESSION. https://nimbus.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-file/Reply%20to%20Opposition?documentId=qx1M8G. Case No. S-1501-PB-62045 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VOID AND VACATE ORDER DETERMINING SUCCESSION FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF THE MOTHER OF DECEDENT. https://nimbus.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-file/Opposition%20to%20Motion?documentId=rk0JvW. KCSC Portal -- S1501PB62045 LISA M LOMBARDI DECEASED. https://portal.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-details/mYAlG. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. "Mineral Rights on Property." Home Guides | SF Gate, https://homeguides.sfgate.com/mineral-rights-property-7961.html. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. Sherman, Gabriel. "Tucker Carlson Was Blindsided by Fox News Firing." Vanity Fair, 24 Apr. 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/tucker-carlson-fox-news-fired. Short, Aaron. "The Tucker Carlson Origin Story." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/the-tucker-carlson-origin-story-2022-5. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. ---. "Tucker Carlson's Mother, Lisa McNear Lombardi, Was a Free-Spirited Artist Who Mostly Disappeared from His Life When He Was Six Years Old." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-tucker-carlsons-mother-the-artist-lisa-mcnear-lombardi-2022-5. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. In July 2023, we began to receive emails from readers asking if it was true that social media platform Twitter was rebranding to "X."   We also found posts repeating the claim on social media platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and TikTok. Facebook Reddit TikTok The claim is true. Twitter owner Elon Musk did rebrand Twitter to X. At the time of writing, Twitter had already begun replacing its famous bird logo with a stylized X. "And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds," Musk tweeted on July 23, 2023. tweeted And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds  Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 23, 2023 July 23, 2023  Reputable news organizations like the Associated Press (AP), The Verge, NBC News, and CNNall reported on the rebrand. AP reportedthat Musk had founded a startup in 1999 called X.com, which later became PayPal, and that he also calls his son with singer Grimes "X" for short. Associated Press (AP) The Verge NBC News CNN reported which later became PayPal his son with singer Grimes At the time of writing, Twitter's bird logo was still displayed as its logo on the company's web page that discussed branding. "Our logo is our most recognizable asset," the page said. "That's why we're so protective of it." said However, Twitter's sign-up page looked like this:  (Twitter) In an article about the replacement of Twitter's bird logo, The Verge wrote: The Verge The bird theming runs deep, and it's not clear that X Corp. (as Twitter has legally been known for months now) will be able to replace it entirely. We've previously written about changes to Twitter's platform, including a false claim that U.S. President Joe Biden's Twitter account had been designated as a business account. false claim About Twitter | Our Logo, Brand Guidelines, and Tweet Tools. https://about.twitter.com/en/who-we-are/brand-toolkit.html. Accessed 24 July 2023. Chan, Kelvin. "Elon Musk Reveals New X Logo to Replace Twitter's Blue Bird." AP News, 24 July 2023, https://apnews.com/article/twitter-x-logo-blue-bird-musk-0689e9a5c3a217afc2fbefeaf0e6d8a8. Da Silva, Chantal. "Twitter Rebrands to 'X' as Elon Musk Loses Iconic Bird Logo." NBC News, 24 July 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/twitter-rebrands-x-elon-musk-loses-iconic-bird-logo-rcna95880. LaMagdeleine, Izz Scott. "Was Biden's Twitter Account Designated for Business?" Snopes, 21 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bidens-twitter-account-designated-for-business/. Valinsky, Jordan. "Elon Musk Rebrands Twitter as X | CNN Business." CNN, 24 July 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/tech/twitter-rebrands-x-elon-musk-hnk-intl/index.html. Warren, Tom. "Twitter Is Now X as the Little Blue Bird Disappears." The Verge, 24 July 2023, https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/24/23804973/twitter-x-logo-brand-replacement. On 3 February 2019, Super Bowl Sunday, the viral news and entertainment site LADbible.com reported that the pop music band and Super Bowl LIII halftime act Maroon 5 had donated their "entire $500,000 Super Bowl fee" to a children's charity: reported   Although it's true that Maroon 5 partnered with their label Interscope Records and the National Football League (NFL) in making a $500,000 donation to the children's charity Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the money didn't come out of the band's performance fee. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy clarified in an email that Super Bowl halftime acts don't receive performance fees. McCarthy referred us to a statement from Maroon 5 lead singer Adam Levine provided to People magazine that said: "Playing the Super Bowl has been a dream of our band for a long time. We thank the NFL for the opportunity and also to them, along with Interscope Records, for making this donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, which will have a major impact for children across the country." People Maroon 5 followed the lead of rapper Travis Scott, who only agreed to perform at the Super Bowl after the NFL vowed to make a $500,000 donation to Dream Corps, a social justice-oriented non-profit founded by Van Jones in 2015. non-profit The large donations to charitable organizations were the result of the mounting pressure the NFL was facing over what critics called the "blacklisting" by the league of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games in protest over police violence against black Americans. As his protest spread and was adopted by other players in the league, so did the backlash. In reference to players' kneeling before games, President Donald Trump in September 2017 stated: Wouldnt you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! Hes fired. Hes fired! stated Kaepernick hasn't played since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in 2017 and has filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing team owners of colluding in not signing him. grievance As a result of the controversy, the NFL had trouble securing halftime acts for Super Bowl LIII, with A-list entertainers such as Rihanna, Cardi B, Jay-Z, and Pink declining to perform in solidarity with Kaepernick. In an interview with the Associated Press, rapper Cardi B said, I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But theres a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him. Associated Press Maroon 5's act of charity didn't save them from harsh criticism for crossing "the ideological or intellectual picket line," as Kaepernick's attorney Mark Geragos put it in an interview with ABC News. "In fact, if anything, its a cop-out when you start talking about, 'Im not a politician Im just doing the music.' Most of the musicians who have any kind of consciousness whatsoever understand what's going on here." ABC News Tracy, Brianne.  "Maroon 5 and the NFL Announce $500,000 Charity Donation Ahead of Super Bowl Halftime Show."
  People.  31 January 2019. Ruggieri, Melissa.  "Super Bowl 53: Travis Scotts Halftime Inclusion Comes Wwth Charitable Contribution from NFL."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 January 2019. Landrum, Jonathan Jr.  "Cardi B Declined Super Bowl Halftime with Mixed Feelings.'"
  Associated Press.  1 February 2019. Allen, Karma et al.  "Maroon 5's Adam Levine Addresses 'Controversy' Surrounding Super Bowl Halftime Show, Teases Performance."
  ABC News.  1 February 2019. Langone, Alix.  "Here's How Much Maroon 5 Is Getting Paid to Perform at the 2019 Super Bowl."
  Yahoo Finance.  3 February 2019. Bieler, Des. " Colin Kaepernick Thanks Rihanna for Her Super Bowl Boycott."
  The Washington Post.  5 February 2019. Claim:  A 2010 calendar distributed by Publix supermarkets identifies December 7 as "Islamic New Year."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Dear Fellow Americans, Publix is giving away free calendars at their stores. This calendar is a disgrace and an insult to every American. This Publix calendar displays December 7th, ("A day that will live in infamy") with a notation "Islamic New Year" marked for that day. No mention of "Pearl Harbor Day," which commemorates the death of over 2500 American Service Men and an untold death toll of civilians on that fretful day. I have attached a copy of the December 2010 page for your review. Please go to https://publix.com. On top of the page is a link to "Contact us", click on this and on the next page under the Consumer Relations paragraph is the link for "e-mail. Write to them and inform them of your feelings about Publix recognizing the Muslim New Year over Pearl Harbor Day. Let Publix know that you will not tolerate this un-American attitude and boycott their stores. You can inform them that your shopping will be done at Walmart, Target and Winn Dixie, who recognize Americans and their fighting men and women. And, they are also cheaper than Publix.  Origins:  Muslims observe the Islamic New Year on the first day of Muharram, which is the first month in the Islamic calendar.  However, since the Islamic calendar is based on a lunar calendar of 354 days, its notable dates move around  relative to the Gregorian calendar from year to year: the Islamic New Year fell on December 29 in 2008, and on December 18 in 2009. In 2010, the Islamic New Year corresponds to December 7 on the Gregorian calendar, a coincidence which has caused something of a brouhaha  for Publix, a Florida-based supermarket chain.  Publix, like many businesses, offers calendars to its customers at the beginning of each year, and those calendars include legends identifying days of particular interest, such as federal holidays and religious holidays.  Publix's 2010 calendar bears a legend for December 7 marking that date as the "Islamic New Year," which it is  however, that day also has a special significance for Americans, as the passage of public law 103-308 in 1994 officially designated that date as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, a day to remember and honor all those who died in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.  (December 7 had also been observed as an annual day of remembrance for those killed at Pearl Harbor long before it was officially designated as such in 1994.) 103-308 That Publix's calendars included mention of the Islamic New Year but not Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day was a source of some controversy (although Publix pointed out that the Islamic New Year had been noted on their calendars since 2006, while Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day had never  been listed). The company responded by stating it would add a notation for the latter to the next year's calendars: For several years, Publix has given away calendars with valuable coupons inside. Traditionally, our calendars have solely noted holidays. Due to the number of holidays in a calendar year, days of remembrance have not been noted. This year, Islamic New Year happens to fall on Dec. 7. Like Chinese New Year, which is also a holiday, Islamic New Year rotates dates, is a holiday, and is noted on the calendar as such. We regret that the day of remembrance  Pearl Harbor  is not noted, and as a result of customer feedback, we will add Pearl Harbor to our next year's calendar. The calendars are no longer available at retail. Last updated:  9 January 2010    Ortega, Juan.  "Complaints Prompt Publix to Remove Calendar That Omitted Pearl Harbor."   [South Florida] Sun-Sentinel.  8 January 2010.    UPI.  "Pearl Harbor Omission Plagues Calendar."   9 January 2010.