Is This Joe and Hunter Biden Golfing with the Head of Burisma?
In the closing days of the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media users recirculated a photograph playing on campaign-long claims by President Donald Trump and his supporters that Democratic nominee Joe Biden used his political influence while vice president to benefit Burisma, one of Ukraines largest natural gas companies, because Biden's son Hunter was a non-executive director on that company's board. recirculated non-executive director The much-shared photograph purportedly showed Joe and Hunter Biden golfing with the "Ukraine oil exec paying Hunter $50 K a month," thereby supposedly contradicting Joe Biden's claims that he had never spoken to his son about the latter's "overseas business dealings": spoken   Which "Ukraine oil exec" is allegedly pictured isn't specified in the above meme, but neither of the men posing with the Bidens is Burisma CEO Taras Burdeinyi, or former Ukraine Ecology Minister and Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky. Taras Burdeinyi Mykola Zlochevsky In fact, the photograph seen above, taken in the Hamptons in 2014 while Joe Biden was still the U.S. vice president, does not depict the Bidens with any Ukrainian oil executives. It captures the Bidens with Devon Archer, who was a partner with Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz in the investment management firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, and Ralph Pascucci, a New York investment banker. taken Ralph Pascucci Although Archer was, like Hunter Biden, a member of the board of Burisma Holdings, neither Archer nor Pascucci is Ukrainian, and neither of those men is  or was  an "oil exec paying Hunter $50K a month," so this photograph is correctly classified as "Miscaptioned."
On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote being cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All of the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to posit the theory that she had essentially paid for her position via campaign contributions. That theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators:  The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions: Reddit  A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989: report In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that  $4.4 million  went to super PACs: those supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, and the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts don't show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns.  A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions:  It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades (although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations). None of this information in itself establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos, or that they had that effect (intended or not).  Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. And although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown  partisanship: posited If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. Theres every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure shed win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVoss generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns:  It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans: I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party. Occasionally a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return, or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate: confirmation hearing Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I dont know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: Thats possible Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I dont mean to be rude. Do you think, if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today? DeVos: Senator, as a matter of fact, I do think that there would be that possibility. Ive worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years to be a voice for students and to empower parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, primarily low-income children. Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed: Politico All of that is disclosed, Alexander said. You can ask those senators and evaluate it yourself. Thats the reason we have limits on campaign contributions and we have disclosures of those things. A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions: singled "People contribute to Senator Rubio's campaign because they support his agenda. Ms. DeVos is a strong supporter of empowering parents and providing educational opportunity for all, policies Senator Rubio has supported for over a decade. Her nomination was opposed by Democrats who take millions of dollars from the big unions obsessed with denying school choice to low-income children.  Brown, Emma.  "With Historic Tiebreaker from Pence, DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M to Republicans."
  Forbes.  17 January 2017. Bump, Phillip.  "The DeVos Vote Is a Bad Case Study for the Power of Campaign Contributions."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Stratford, Michael.  "DeVos Heads Into Confirmation with a Megadonor's Advantage."
  Politico.  20 December 2016. Noland, Jack.  "Betsy DeVos and Her Big-Giving Relatives: Family Qualifies as GOP Royalty."
  Center for Responsive Politics.  1 December 2016. Boser, Ulrich.  "Conflicts of DeVos."
  Center for American Progress.  12 January 2017. In April 2018 Utah Republican Mike Kennedy made national headlines as he faced off against Mitt Romney for a Senate seat in that state, prompting the circulation of a meme asserting that the Kennedy had once made a statement about access to hospitals and patient deaths: national headlines meme   Although the meme dated to at least 2015, its featured quote appeared in a 24 April 2018 Salt Lake Tribune article: "Who is that guy who beat Mitt Romney at the GOP convention?" which reported that: article At the top of the list is to repeal Obamacare. [Kennedy] told delegates, I oppose Obamacare and any scheme that puts the government between doctor and patient. Four years ago, Kennedy made national headlines when, during a legislative task force meeting, he said, Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous ... Ive heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that were killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And its access to hospitals thats killing those people. That piece referenced a report and video from Salt Lake station KSTU, but neither source provided complete context. Kennedy was quoted as arguing against Medicaid expansion, and as represented, his remarks were accurately transcribed: report Representative Mike Kennedy, a Republican from Alpine, made the comments in a Health Reform Task Force meeting, in reaction to a story from another doctor. Doctor Kyle Jones told the legislature's Health Reform Task Force about a neighbor who was in a car crash. That neighbor suffered a rare response to pain medicine called toxic encephalopathy. The condition has caused memory loss, seizures and depression, according to Jones. "Sometimes access actually can mean harm," said Representative Mike Kennedy, a family physician. The Republican from Alpine repeated the argument more than once: "Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous. And it's a perspective for the [Legislative] body to consider is that, I've heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that we're killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And it's access to hospitals that's killing those people."  We were unable to locate any information substantiating Kennedy's claim that access to hospitals killed between one and one-and-a-half million Americans per year. It's possible Kennedy was referencing an ongoing study of the effects of medical mistakes, a topic that was the subject of research published in The BMJ in May 2016, but those figures estimated only 250,000 deaths due to medical error per year at that time. medical mistakes published Kennedy may also have been referencing research published in September 2013, in which researchers extrapolated between 210,000 and 400,000 deaths per year "associated with preventable harm in hospitals." Authors of that study concluded that "engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary" to reduce preventable hospital deaths but did not recommend restricting access to medical care as a preventive measure. Davidson, Lee.  "Who Is That Guy Who Beat Mitt Romney At The GOP Convention?"
  The Salt Lake Tribune.  23 April 2018. James, John T. PhD.  "A New, Evidence-Based Estimate Of Patient Harms Associated With Hospital Care."
  Journal of Patient Safety.  September 2013. Romboy, Dennis.  "Little-Known Mike Kennedy To Take On Mitt Romney In Utah GOP Primary."
  Deseret News.  23 April 2018. Roth, Max.  "State Representative To Legislature: Hospitals Can Be Dangerous."
  KSTU.  28 August 2014. Johns Hopkins Medicine.  "Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death In The U.S.."
  3 May 2016. CBS News.  "Mitt Romney 'Probably Not Too Worried' After Second Place Finish At Utah Convention, Reporter Says."
  26 April 2018. On 14 December 2016, misleading reports appeared that not one high schoolmarching band in Washington, D.C. would participate in Donald Trump's inauguration: Donald Trump is so unpopular that not even high school marching bands want the opportunity to perform at his inauguration. Although this is typically an honor for any band asked to participate, there is nothing typical  or honorable  about Trump being named president-elect. The Facebook group "American News X" distorted the truth even further when they published a meme stating that "not one high school marching band" was willing to perform at the inauguration: American News X   High school marching bands, both inside and outside of Washington D.C., have not "boycotted" Donald Trump's inauguration. The rumor isa sensationalized and exaggerated version of a genuine news reportpublished by NBC Washington'sAndrea Swalec, whichstated that interest in playing the 2016inauguration appearedlower than normal, and that bands in the D.C. area did not apply to participate: report At least one D.C. public school marching band has participated in the past five inaugural parades, but none applied for consideration this year. Ballou High Schools Majestic Marching Knights performed Destinys Childs Lose My Breath at George W. Bushs second inaugural parade in 2005, and stepped along Pennsylvania Avenue as they played James Browns I Got You (I Feel Good) at Barack Obamas second inaugural parade eight years later. But the beloved band decided to take a break in January and not apply to play in the inaugural parade after several other recent performances, the principal said. Dunbar High Schools band marched in Obamas first inauguration in 2009 but the school will sit this one out because they are rebuilding the band, the principal said. Eastern High School also chose not to participate, the principal said, without elaborating. A D.C. Public Schools spokeswoman said she was not aware of any band in the district that had applied to participate in President-elect Donald Trumps inaugural parade Jan. 20. However, that is not the same as an organized boycott. While it is true that high school bands in the D.C. area did not apply to play Trump's inauguration, theschools cited a variety of reasons to miss the event (a boycott not being one of them). Furthermore, the area's involvement in the last five inaugurations may speak to the lack of interest this year: But politics may not explain the low interest in the inaugural parade; an unwritten rule of the band world may play into why some bands didnt apply. University of Maryland band director Eli Osterloh said that after performing in an inaugural parade, some bands opt to wait about 10 years before applying again, as a courtesy to other applicants. None of this means that the event will be missing a marching band. Drum Corps International events director Sue Kuehnhold said that bands from the president's hometown could be selected to play at the 20 January 2017 inauguration. Swalec, Andrea.  "DC-Area Marching Bands Opt to Sit Out Trump's Inaugural Parade."
  NBC Washington.  14 December 2016. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. As controversy raged over racially motivated violence and law enforcement policies in the United States, a persistent rumor regarding the origins of 21st-century policing appeared online. It showed up, as such things tend to do, in meme form:   But how accurate is this? And where did the concept of police as de facto executors of justice (rather than peacekeepers) originate? Law enforcement has always existed in one form or another. The first constables (from the Roman comes stabuli, or "head of the stables") with duties very similar to today's sheriffs, were around at least since the 9th century, and traveled to the Americas from Europe to supplant the systems that existed there at the time in the 1600s. The Encyclopedia of Police Science delves into the history of constables in the colonies:  history In the American colonies the constable was the first law enforcement officer. His duties varied from place to place according to the needs of the people he served. Usually, the constable sealed weights and measures, surveyed land, announced marriages, and executed all warrants. Additionally, he meted out physical punishments and kept the peace.  The informal and communal system known as "the Watch" worked (more or less efficiently) on a volunteer basis in the early colonies; there were also private policing systems for hire that functioned on a for-profit basis. As populations grew, so did demands for more functional system of policing towns and cities. Volunteers would often show up to their posts drunk or not at all, and the systems were disorganized or hopelessly corrupt.  posts According to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University, a centralized, bureaucratic police system did not emerge until well into the 1800s, but was quickly adopted by cities around the country: Gary Potter It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. These "modern police" organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were full-time employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980). More than a hundred years earlier, in 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the fledgling United States' first slave patrol. The patrol consisted of roving bands of armed white citizens who would stop, question, and punish slaves caught without a permit to travel. They were civil organizations, controlled and maintained by county courts. The way the patrols were organized and maintained provided a later framework for preventive (rather than reactive) community policing, particularly in the South:  courts Policing had always been a reactive enterprise, occurring only in response to a specific criminal act. Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the "dangerous classes" began to emphasize preventative crime control. The presence of police, authorized to use force, could stop crime before it started by subjecting everyone to surveillance and observation. The concept of the police patrol as a preventative control mechanism routinized the insertion of police into the normal daily events of everyone's life, a previously unknown and highly feared concept in both England and the United States (Parks 1976). Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as "collective bargaining by riot") and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States' restive economic underclasses.  labor strikes Eric Hobsbawm destruction In fact, police duties since the 1800s can be easily traced along the ebb and flow of political pressures as well as social issues:  issues In 1822, for example, Charleston, South Carolina, experienced a slave insurrection panic, caused by a supposed plot of slaves and free blacks to seize the city. In response, the State legislature passed the Negro Seamen's Act, requiring free black seamen to remain on board their vessels while in Carolina harbors. If they dared to leave their ships, the police were instructed to arrest them and sell them into slavery unless they were redeemed by the ship's master.  Similarly, patrols such as the Mounted Guards (forerunners to what eventually became the Border Patrol) were put in place to maintain minority quotas, among other things:  minority quotas Mounted watchmen of the U.S. Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called Mounted Guards, operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than seventy-five, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration. In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of Mounted Guards, often referred to as Mounted Inspectors. Most rode on horseback, but a few operated cars and even boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the Chinese exclusion laws. Modern law enforcement evolved out of complex brew of a larger population, shifting sociopolitical class boundaries, and other external issues (such as the labor pressures that created an unhappy underclass) and a shift in the way policing was regarded by business owners and the population at large: proactive rather than reactive.  However, it is important to note that "the police" do not consist of a homogenous block of the American population, and while the early days of modern-day police forces are undeniable and under-covered facets of its history, the focus and perspective of policing is a complicated and fraught subject. It would be a mistake to assume that police in 2016 are the same as police in the 1870s, and to conclude that the profile of law enforcement in the United States  and around the world  has not changed throughout its existence. It would also be a mistake to assume that law enforcement cannot or will not be changed again in response to popular pressure, given that its focus has varied dramatically since its inception.  Greene, Jack R. (ed.)
 The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Third Edition.   Routledge: New York. 2007. Harring, Sidney L., and McMullin, Lorraine M.  "TheBuffalo Police18721900: Labor Unrest, Political Power and the Creation of the Police Institution."
 Crime and Social Justice 4: 5-14. 1975. Kelling, George L. and Moore, Mark H.  "The Evolving Strategy of Policing."
 National Institute of Justice.  November 1988.
  Potter, Gary. "The History of Policing in the United States, Parts 1-6."
  Eastern Kentucky University, Police Studies Online.  July 2013. Williams, Hubert and Murphy, Patrick V.  "The Evolving Strategy of Police: A Minority View."  National Institute of Justice. January 1990. On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family. claimed However, this was all very misleading. For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family. reality TV show "Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational." synopsis The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. airing on TLC divorced In the Facebook ad about the Roloff family's "sudden loss," the caption contained several grammatical errors. It said: "Since the allegation were confirmed to the public, the cast of 'Little People, Big World' has ask for some privacy. Here is all the information given to the public so far." In other words, the ad appeared to imply that there were recent developments about a death that involved someone on "LPBW" or in the Roloff family.  This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2.  The ad was posted on a Facebook page with a strange name: P-15897-2. It was described as a "clothing store." However, the truth was that this was nothing more than a quickly-created page that was being used to profit off of tragic and outdated news. It was likely managed from outside of the U.S. One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness." episode The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family." article However, the Facebook ad and this article were both misleading. The story was nothing more than an extremely long history of the Roloff family. It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed. report posted reported by People.com The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs." According to Chron.com In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss." reported In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated." attempt to profit Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In early March 2021, Snopes readers asked about screenshots of what appeared to be a scam circulating on the payment platform Venmo. The alleged scam shows a Venmo user sending $600 to another user and then requesting it back, claiming to have sent it to the wrong person:   Although we don't know the intentions of the Venmo user involved in the above exchange (and we cropped the person's name out for privacy reasons), sending money to strangers and then requesting it back is a known type of scam on Venmo. known The Dayton Daily News, a Dayton, Ohio-based daily newspaper, described how the scam works: Even Venmo is aware of these scams and puts a warning on its website that Venmo is designed for payments between people who trust each other because there is no protection for the buyer or seller. Therefore, its important you dont accept or give money to strangers who could potentially be scammers. For example, scammers connect stolen credit cards to Venmo and use them to transfer money to unsuspecting users. If you send the money back to the scammer, he or she will delete the stolen credit card from the account and add his or her own card in its place. Others send screenshots of fake emails that make it seem like theyve paid you through the app, when they actually havent.  The Better Business Bureau (BBB) also warns against this type of scam, in which a cash app user "accidentally" sends a stranger a payment and then requests that they send it back. The BBB advises that if you are targeted in an exchange like this, don't send the money back. Instead, ask the other person to simply cancel the transaction. warns against "The sender can request that the vendor cancel the transaction. If the person refuses, its probably a scam," the BBB states. The BBB also encourages cash app users to check their security settings and to link their accounts to credit cards instead of debit cards or bank accounts because, in the event that you are scammed, it's easier to recoup the money if you charged it to a credit card. Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General. ...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION.   The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes  including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees  as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report.  Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy  then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company  appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house.     Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members  Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars  since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars  DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.  home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy  that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below)  took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly     That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together  this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service  which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses  faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year  or the end of September  without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services.  XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics   As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly  but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes  contradicting previous rules for deliveries  and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:  contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that  temporarily  we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do  [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this  it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day  even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner  an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing. ...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined. ... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party. ... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020  a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays  although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November".
 The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?"
 Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability".
 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts".
 USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service".
 The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery".
 The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser".
 NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable".
 News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General".
 Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck".
 Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization".
 The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day".
 Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up".
 The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service".
 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes".
 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring".
 The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service".
 The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting".
 The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election".
 The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes."
 Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement."
 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail." On Nov. 21, 2019, a rumor started to circulate on social media that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) had removed Fox News from "Armed Forces Radio" over the network's coverage of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony during the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump: circulate   No, Fox News has not been removed from "Armed Forces Radio," a misnomer of the American Forces Network Radio (AFN). Navy Capt. Bill Speaks, a Pentagon spokesperson, confirmed to the Associated Press that this rumor was false: Associated Press "We have not cancelled Fox News from American Forces Network programming, either on our radio or TV services." A spokesperson for American Forces Network Radio told us via email: American Forces Network (AFN) Radio has and continues to air FOX radio newscasts and features on many of our radio services. AFN Radio rotates top of the hour radio newscasts between FOX, Associated Press, ABC, CBS and Westwood One radio. While Fox News was not removed from America Forces Network Radio, the network truly was criticized for how it covered Vindman's testimony. Vindman's lawyer sent a letter to Fox News asking it to retract an Oct. 28 segment that aired on Laura Ingraham's prime-time show, "The Ingraham Angle." On the show, guest John Yoo, a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, appeared to suggest that Vindman was guilty of espionage. letter Newsweek reported: reported A law firm representing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman sent Fox News a warning letter on Wednesday asking for the retraction and correction of a segment on Laura Ingraham's show which suggested the colonel might be guilty of espionage. "We are compelled to write because of a deeply flawed and erroneous Fox News segment that first aired on October 28, 2019, the gist of which has since been republished countless times, including by the President of the United States to his 66.9 million Twitter followers." The segment on The Ingraham Angle featured a panel with lawyer John Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General and current U.C. Berkeley law professor, and legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz. In an exchange with Yoo, Ingraham remarked on something she read about about the colonel, the New York Times reports. "Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English," said Ingraham. "Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?" "I find that astounding and, you know, some people might call that espionage," responded Yoo. Fox News released a statement saying that "Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments": As a guest on FOX News, John Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments and he has subsequently done interviews to clarify what he meant.  Yoo also wrote an op-ed for USA Today on Nov. 1, 2019, in which he claimed that he was talking about Ukraine, not Vindman specifically, and that he has "no reason to question Vindmans patriotism or loyalty to the United States." USA Today Vindman's lawyers also addressed Yoo's Op-Ed in their complaint, writing: writing "On November 1, 2019, Mr. Yoo published an op-ed in USA Today regarding his appearance on Fox News several days earlier. In the Yoo op-ed, Mr. Yoo stated, contrary to fact, that "I didn't call Alexander Vindman a spy." But of course, he did - Mr. Yoo's statement on Fox News expressly accused LTC Vindman of "espionage" and was universally understood to have done so. it is why Mr. Yoo wrote an op-ed seeking to rewrite recorded fact; it is why he begins his op-ed, "I really stepped in it this week." What Mr. Yoo "stepped in" was a lie. Darcy, Oliver.  "Lawyer for Impeachment Witness Lt. Col Vindman Demands Fox News Retract 'False and Defamatory' Segment."
  CNN.  21 November 2019. Associated Press.  "Fox News Was Not Removed From Armed Forces Radio Over Vindman Testimony."
   21 November 2019. Yoo, John.  "John Yoo: No, I Didn't Call Alexander Vindman a Spy. But Ukraine Did Engage in Espionage."
  USA Today.  1 November 2019.