Did Lloyd Austin's DOD Approve Contracts for a Company He Owns Stocks in?
This article has been updated and its rating has been changed from "True" to  Following initial publication, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby provided us with this statement: "By prior arrangement, Secretary Austin divested his entire Raytheon portfolio on Jan. 22, 2021, immediately following the Senate vote confirming him as the new Secretary of Defense. Snopes initially received no comment on a Feb. 24, 2021 inquiry about his divestment from Raytheon, and as such, our initial article relied on a divestment timeline provided by Secretary Austin in filings with the Office of Government Ethics. On Feb. 19, 2021, an identically phrased claim went viral on multiple social media accounts, including that of a sitting congressman, after it was posted by a self-described MAGA "global recruiter" with the Twitter handle "@johnnyrwhitsett." The claim references an alleged $285 million defense contract awarded to a company that U.S. President Joe Biden's secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, "owns over [$1 million] of stock in."  posted   The memes are referring to Austins past financial interest in the military contractor Raytheon. While Austin served on the Board of Directors of Raytheon and once held shares in the company given to him through executive compensation, the statement that he was invested in the company during the time he was in office is, according to Pentagon Spokesperson John Kirby, false. The specific monetary value in these memes appears to have their origin in a viral Feb. 17 YouTube video that  despite discussing the value 85 million in the actual clip  was shared by its creator with the higher number on Twitter. That video derived the number $85 million from an announcement by the State Department  which does not award defense contracts  approving a proposed sale of missiles produced by the company Raytheon to the government of Chile. YouTube video announcement does not Austin's divestment aside, senators have raised concerns over the close relationship between Raytheon and Austin in general. In correspondence with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Austin pledged to extend his recusal from Raytheon Technologies for four years and to not seek a position on the board of a defense contractor or become a lobbyist after his government service. raised concerns It bears mentioning that Mark Esper, who served as former President Donald Trumps secretary of defense, served as Raytheons vice president of government relations directly before his confirmation. When asked by Warren during his confirmation hearing if he would recuse himself from decisions involving Raytheon, he refused. served refused From 2016 to the day of his confirmation as secretary of defense on Jan. 22, 2021, Austin served on the Board of Directors for Raytheon or a company, United Technologies Corp, that would merge with it. Prior to his confirmation, according to documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics, Austin held vested deferred stock units and vested and unvested restricted stock units in Raytheon. merge documents filed These are special forms of stock-based executive compensation. Deferred stock units are shares inaccessible to the owner until after that person has left the company. Restricted stocks are ownership shares of a company subject to special Securities and Exchange (SEC) restrictions intended, among other things, to prevent premature selling. Both options are often given on a vesting schedule, meaning that the full amount of the stock compensation is not available to that executive (i.e., it remains unvested) until the executive has worked at the company for a certain period of time. Deferred Restricted Austin sold these stocks the day of his confirmation. In his White House financial disclosure form, Austin indicated the value of his vested deferred stocks to be between $500,000 and $1,000,000 and the value of his vested restricted stocks to be between $50,000 and $100,000. Austin, a DOD spokesperson told us, "will file a Periodic Transaction Report and a Certificate of Ethics Agreement Compliance which will both be publicly available on the OGE website." disclosure form Raytheon performs a prodigious amount of work for the Department of Defense. Based on an analysis performed by Snopes, in the first month that Austin served as its secretary, the DOD granted at least $569,756,040 in new contracts or contract modifications to Raytheon or various divisions of Raytheon branches: an analysis $19,950,844 $290,704,534 $49,195,531 $53,861,439 $7,580,414 $8,377,372 $8,220,193 $74,238,334 $13,208,180 $14,921,191 $29,498,008 As part of Austin's ethics pledge, he stated that he would "not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of Raytheon." We asked the DOD how this arrangement would work, given the large volume of business conducted with Raytheon. In response, a spokesperson told us: ethics pledge Through a formal screening arrangement, the Secretary has directed his staff to identify all matters that involve Raytheon as a party or a representative of a party, as well as any matters that could directly and predictably affect the financial interests of Raytheon. Any such matters involving Raytheon are referred to the Deputy Secretary of Defense or another senior official for action or assignment. A copy of the Screening Arrangement is available in the DoD FOIA Reading Room. DoD FOIA Reading Room Because Austin divested entirely from Raytheon prior to any contract being awarded to the company under his leadership, the claim is  Updated [March 2, 2021]: Changed rating from True to False based on a late-arriving statement from Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby informing us that Austin divested entirely from Raytheon immediately after the Senate voted to confirm him.
Claim:  President Obama plans to implement a pay freeze for active duty military personnel in 2011.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2010] On Facebook, there is the following message "reposted" by a friend, and who knows how far gone it has been around: "Dear Mr. President, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for active duty starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why would we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? Repost if you agree!"    Origins:  As of the time this item was circulating via Facebook postings in November 2010, it was not true that President Obama had announced an intention to freeze the pay of active duty military personnel starting in 2011.  (In fact, President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal, submitted in February 2010, called for a 1.4% military pay bump for the following year.) budget proposal The November 2010 circulation of this item was prompted by a draft report prepared by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR), a bipartisan body created by President Obama "to address our nation's fiscal challenges."  Among the 58 recommendations included in that draft report, released in November 2010, was a recommendation for a three-year freeze on basic non-combat military pay and allowances: draft report NCFRR Freeze non-combat military pay at 2011 levels for 3 years Regular Military Compensation (excluding combat pay) for military personnel, which includes basic pay, basic allowances for housing and subsistence, and federal income tax advantages that go along with the allowances, is expected to grow by $9.2 billion from 2011 to 2015. A three-year freeze at 2011 levels for these compensation categories would save the federal government $7.6 billion in compensation and tax expenditures, as well as another $1.6 billion in less retirement accrual, or $9.2 billion total discretionary savings in 2015. However, as noted above, the NCFRR's report was merely a draft, and a military pay freeze was but one of several dozen potential items offered to achieve the goal of saving $200 billion in federal expenditures through 2015. Any such proposal, even if considered, would still have to overcome several hurdles before being enacted, including approval by 14 of the 18 commissioners who comprise the NCFRR and then subsequent approval by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.    In December 2010, Congress approved President Obama's recommended 1.4% pay increase for military personnel, while President Obama announced that he would freeze for two years the salaries of all other federal government workers. As for presidential compensation (which is currently set at $400,000 per year, with a $50,000 expense allowance), the salary of the President of the United States is established by Congress, so a president cannot technically "cut his own pay" (although he might opt to decline some or all of his salary, or donate it to charity).  Members of Congress could vote to decrease their salaries (which are currently set at $174,000 per year), although they have already voted to decline their cost-of-living pay increases in 2009 and again in 2010. decline Last updated:  13 January 2011    Pincus, Walter.  "House Approves Defense Bill with Lower Pay Raise for Military."   The Washington Post.  18 December 2010.    Vinch, Chuck.  "Panel Calls for 3-Year Freeze on Military Pay."   Army Times.  11 November 2010. In December 2023, online advertisements were displayed to YouTube users that showed one or more photos of Five Guys restaurant locations. For example, the caption for one ad read, "They're Closing Doors In 2024. Restaurant Chains Closing 2024."  Also, in Google ads that featured the same photos of Five Guys restaurants, the caption was displayed as follows: "They're Closing Doors in 2024. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Fast Food Restaurants Be Closing The Doors." Several other variations of these ads were also displayed online.  The ads appeared to claim that Five Guys would be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. However, this was false. All of the ads led to an article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." The article's page source code indicated that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed 68 different businesses, most that appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. In other words, the article was fairly long. Nowhere in the apparent 68-slide article was Five Guys mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Five Guys restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through 68 slides for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Five Guys by email to ask if they had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/. In April 2018, an outrage-instigating meme circulated on Facebook reporting that Jim Lowe, a retired Marine Corps captain, had been forbidden from flying both the American flag and the Marine Corps colors outside his home. The meme instructs users to "like" and "share" if they agree he should be allowed to do so:   According to local news reports, the dispute over the flags stemmed from Lowe flying both the Stars and Stripes and the Marine Corps colors from the exterior of his home despite a community rule that allowed only one flag. But Lowe had maintained that because Marines refer to their banner as "colors," it shouldn't count as a flag. The homeowners association had threatened to fine Lowe or even place a lien on his house if he didn't comply. The situation escalated to the point where Lowe threatened to move out of the community, but he never made good on it. According to the local newspaper, The Citizen, Lowe passed away in his Sun City-Peachtree home on 12 September 2016  but not before the combat veteran was able to "give 'em hell." Local news station WTXF reported that in October 2013, Lowe won the battle to fly both the American flag and Marine Corps colors outside his home. threatened The Citizen won the battle Fox News."Georgia Marine Vet Loses Fight to Fly American, Marine Corps Flags."
27 August 2013. Wing, Nick."Georgia Veteran Plans to Leave Retirement Community After Being Told He Cant Fly Two Flags."
HuffingtonPost.com.27 August 2013. The Citizen."James Madison Lowe II, Age 76."
16 September 2016. Dillon, Denise."Veteran Wins Battle to Fly U.S., USMC Flags Outside Home."
WAGA.30 September 2013. Claim:  King Digital Entertainment, maker of Candy Crush Saga, copied their game from CandySwipe and is attempting to cancel the latter's trademark. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2014] There is an "open letter" being circulated that is supposed to have been written by an Albert Ransom from Runsome Apps, Inc, that states that he trademarked a game called CandySwipe prior to King.com creating CandyCrush and that King.com is trying to take over his trademark.  Is this true?   Synopsis:  As of 16 April 2014, the parties in the dispute discussed below have announced the withdrawal of their claims against each other, so this item is no longer current: announced I am happy to announce that I have amicably resolved my dispute with King over my CandySwipe trademark and that I am withdrawing my opposition to their mark and they are withdrawing their counterclaim against mine. I have learned that they picked the CANDY CRUSH name before I released my game and that they were never trying to take my game away. Both our games can continue to coexist without confusing players. Origins:  In February 2014, King Digital Entertainment, the company behind the massively popular Candy Crush Saga game, announced they had filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to issue an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock.  King said they expected to raise $500 million in capital, with some analysts predicting that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) could value the company as high as $5.5 billion based largely on the strength of Candy Crush Saga: filed The game, which involves matching brightly coloured sweets on a grid to solve various puzzles, was played over 1 billion times a day in December [2013], according to the filing. Candy Crush is free but players pay for options within the game. It has proved a lucrative combination. King's profits grew over 7,000% last year, according to the filing. In 2012 the company's revenues were $164.4 million and its net profit $7.8 million, in 2013 those figures rose to $1.88 billion and $567.6 million respectively. But the filing also reveals that King's fortunes are currently closely tied to the continued success of Candy Crush. The game accounts for 78% of King's total gross bookings, according to the filing. Its second most popular game, Pet Rescue Saga, had 15 million daily active users in December, a fraction of Candy Crush's 93 million. King noted in its filing that "a small number of games currently generate a substantial majority of our revenue." However, King has been the subject of controversy due to similarities between Candy Crush Saga and CandySwipe, the latter being an earlier iteration of a comparable game concept and visual design which its creator, independent developer Albert Ransom, maintains King copied from him.  Ransom posted an open letter to King on the CandySwipe web site, criticizing the company for attempting to wrest theCandySwipe trademark away from him: CandySwipe open letter Dear King, Congratulations! You win! I created my game CandySwipe in memory of my late mother who passed away at an early age of 62 of leukemia. I released CandySwipe in 2010 five months after she passed and I made it because she always liked these sorts of games. In fact, if you beat the full version of the android game, you will still get the message saying "... the game was made in memory of my mother, Layla ..." I created this game for warmhearted people like her and to help support my family, wife and two boys 10 and 4. Two years after I released CandySwipe, you released Candy Crush Saga on mobile; the app icon, candy pieces, and even the rewarding, "Sweet!" are nearly identical. So much so, that I have hundreds of instances of actual confusion from users who think CandySwipe is Candy Crush Saga, or that CandySwipe is a Candy Crush Saga knockoff. So when you attempted to register your trademark in 2012, I opposed it for "likelihood of confusion" (which is within my legal right) given I filed for my registered trademark back in 2010 (two years before Candy Crush Saga existed). Now, after quietly battling this trademark opposition for a year, I have learned that you now want to cancel my CandySwipe trademark so that I don't have the right to use my own game's name. You are able to do this because only within the last month you purchased the rights to a game named Candy Crusher (which is nothing like CandySwipe or even Candy Crush Saga). Good for you, you win. I hope you're happy taking the food out of my family's mouth when CandySwipe clearly existed well before Candy Crush Saga. I have spent over three years working on this game as an independent app developer. I learned how to code on my own after my mother passed and CandySwipe was my first and most successful game; it's my livelihood, and you are now attempting to take that away from me. You have taken away the possibility of CandySwipe blossoming into what it has the potential of becoming. I have been quiet, not to exploit the situation, hoping that both sides could agree on a peaceful resolution. However, your move to buy a trademark for the sole purpose of getting away with infringing on the CandySwipe trademark and goodwill just sickens me. This also contradicts your recent quote by Riccardo in "An open letter on intellectual property" posted on your website which states, "We believe in a thriving game development community, and believe that good game developers  both small and large  have every right to protect the hard work they do and the games they create." I myself was only trying to protect my hard work. I wanted to take this moment to write you this letter so that you know who I am. Because I now know exactly what you are. Congratulations on your success! Ransom's statement was penned in response to King's own open letter on the trademark issue, in which the company maintained that they were simply acquiring "Candy"-related trademarks in order to ensure that their "hard work is not simply copied elsewhere" and to defend their product against "games with similar sounding titles and similar looking graphics" (without commenting on the claim that the similar CandySwipe game antedated Candy Crush Saga by about two years and therefore could not have been copied from the latter): open letter There has been a vigorous debate both inside and outside King about how we protect our intellectual property. I want to set the record straight about where we stand on these issues, and clarify our philosophy on intellectual property. At its simplest, our policy is to protect our IP and to also respect the IP of others. We believe in a thriving game development community, and believe that good game developers  both small and large  have every right to protect the hard work they  do and the games they create. Like any responsible company, we take appropriate steps to protect our IP, including our look-and-feel and trademarks. Our goals are simple: to ensure that our employees' hard work is not simply copied elsewhere, that we avoid player confusion and that the integrity of our brands remains. Lets talk about trademarks, and the use of the words "Candy" and "Saga" in casual gaming. Let's start with the fact that Candy Crush Saga has become one of the most successful casual games in history. Millions of people play the game every day. Not surprisingly, some developers have seen an opportunity to take advantage of the game's popularity, and have published games with similar sounding titles and similar looking graphics. We believe it is right and reasonable to defend ourselves from such copycats. To protect our IP, last year we acquired the trademark in the EU for "Candy" from a company that was in bankruptcy  and we have filed for a similar trademark in the U.S. We've been the subject of no little scorn for our actions on this front, but the truth is that there is nothing very unusual about trademarking a common word for specific uses. Think of "Time", "Money" "Fortune", "Apple", and "Sun", to name a few. We are not trying to control the world's use of the word "Candy"; having a trade mark doesn't allow us to do that anyway. We're just trying to prevent others from creating games that unfairly capitalise on our success. As Metro chimed in, however, even though King may appear to be the villain in this story, neither side may be correct in claiming the high ground since both CandySwipe and Candy Crush Saga are notably similar to other games dating from the mid-1990s, and what is being disputed is merely the name that each side is using for their version of the game rather than a claim to the original idea itself (i.e., this is a tussle over trademarks, not copyright): Part legal drama, part time travel story, this one has it all. Candy Crush developer King have been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons lately, as they continue their attempts to trademark the words 'candy' and 'saga'  which led to them threatening to sue Viking game 'The Banner Saga.' For an encore it later transpired that King had purposefully cloned somebody else's game when a publishing deal fell through. Which was sadly ironic considering how paranoid they are about other people copying them. And now they're responding with legal action of their own, against the makers of CandySwipe, by claiming that it's a clone. Despite the fact that Candy Swipe came out two years before Candy Crush. In fact it's worse than that, as Kings attempts to have CandySwipe's trademark cancelled revolves around them buying the rights to an even earlier game called Candy Crusher. This, they hope, will allow them to claim that they are the original trademark holders of everything video game and candy-related. Although it's hard not to side with Ransom in all this, the idea of all these developers suing each other over who cloned who seems slightly absurd considering they're all just copies of Bejeweled anyway. Indeed, the modern match-three style puzzler has barely changed at all since the days of Nintendo's Panel De Pon/Tetris Attack in 1995. Although the true originator of the concept is little known PC title Shariki, from a year earlier. Shariki  Metro also reported an attempt by developers to challenge King's trademark maneuvering by creating "as many games with the word candy in them as possible": Indie developers have fought back against developer King's increasingly bizarre legal actions with a game jam called 'Candy Jam'. To the uninitiated it may look like just another Bejeweled clone, but Candy Crush Saga is currently one of the most popular video games in the world. This means British developer King suddenly has a lot of power and influence, which naturally it's already started to abuse. It's the slightly unhinged nature of the abuse which is unexpected though, with the company currently trying to trademark the word 'candy' so that nobody else can use it. But King's plans don't stop there, as they're also suing Kickstarter game 'The Banner Saga' because it has the word 'saga' in its name. Ignoring the fact that most people omit the word Saga when saying Candy Crush's name, 'The Banner Saga' is an adult-themed tactical role-playing game with a notably morose atmosphere. Although it does contain lots of angry vikings, at no point in the game are you invited to match together three-similarly coloured sweets. Even so Kings legal filing insists that: "The use and registration by Applicant of the mark The Banner Saga for Applicant's goods is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or deception in the trade, and among purchasers and potential purchasers, with Opposer's Saga Marks, again resulting in damage to Opposer." We're trying to keep upbeat but frankly the whole business is deeply depressing in its unbridled corporate greed.  The only positive element to the story is that indie developers have organised an event called Candy Jam to protest King's actions and to make as many games with the word candy in them as possible. The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) has also weighed in on the issue, describing King's trademark efforts as "overreaching" and "predatory": weighed As an advocacy organization for game developers, the IGDA diligently monitors issues that may restrict a developer's ability to create and distribute his or her work. After reviewing the Trademark filing and subsequent conduct by King Inc. in relation to its popular game, 'Candy Crush Saga,' we feel we should comment. While we understand and respect the appropriate exercise of Trademark rights, King's overreaching filing in its application for the Trademark for its game "Candy Crush Saga," and its predatory efforts to apply that mark to each separate word contained in that name, are in opposition to the values of openness and cooperation we support industry wide, and directly contradict the statement King's CEO, Riccardo Zacconi, made on 27 January. Our Business and Legal Special Interest Group will be providing a more comprehensive analysis of this issue from its perspective soon. Last updated:  17 April 2014    Rushe, Dominic and Stuart Dredge.  "Candy Crush Game Maker Aims to Raise $500M in IPO."   The Guardian.  18 February 2014.    Agence France-Presse.  "Candy Crush Developer Defends Trademarking 'Candy' After Backlash."   28 January 2014.    Metro.  "Candy Crush Makers Sue The Banner Saga, Trademark the Word 'Candy'."   22 January 2014.    Metro.  "Candy Crush Saga Makers to Sue Game They Copied."   13 February 2014.    Reuters.  "Candy Crush Saga Developer King Trademarks the Word "Candy.'"   22 January 2014. In late March and early April 2021, Snopes readers inquired about memes circulating on Facebook claiming that legendary actor Morgan Freeman had converted his 124-acre ranch in Mississippi into a bee sanctuary.   The text of the meme read, "Concerned about the loss of bees, Morgan Freeman converted his 124-acre Mississippi ranch into a bee refuge. He hired gardeners, filled acres with clover, planted hundreds of flowering trees, purchased 26 hives, and has turned himself into a beekeeper." Posts and articles on various websites stating the "Shawshank Redemption" star is a beekeeper with a bee sanctuary at his Mississippi residence have been circulating for years. They are sourced from an interview given by Freeman to late-night comedy host Jimmy Fallon in 2014. During the interview, Freeman acknowledged that he lived in Mississippi and stated he was new to beekeeping, having just purchased his bees from Arkadelphia, Arkansas, two weeks prior: interview  The website Mother Nature News in 2014 quoted Freeman talking about his beekeeping project, reporting that he made the following remarks during a media tour promoting the film "Lucy": quoted There's a concerted effort to bring bees back onto the planet ... We do not realize that they are the foundation, I think, of the growth of the planet, the vegetation... I have so many flowering things and I have a gardener too. Because she takes care of the bees too, all she does is figure out, 'OK, what would they like to have?', so we've got acres and acres of clover, we're planting stuff like lavender, I've got like, maybe 140 magnolia trees, big blossoms. In these comments attributed to him, Freeman mentioned environmental concerns associated with the survival of bees and making efforts to ensure his bees thrive. But he didn't actually state in those remarks that he converted his ranch into a "bee sanctuary" for the purpose of helping the environment. Over the years, news articles have cropped up sourcing Freeman's 2014 comments and reporting that he had converted his ranch in Mississippi to a bee sanctuary. In 2019, a large number of articles were aggregated from a Forbes story with the headline, "Morgan Freeman Converted His 124-Acre Ranch Into A Giant Honeybee Sanctuary To Save The Bees." But the Forbes story also cites Freeman's 2014 interview on Fallon. news articles cropped up Forbes story We were unable to find recent comments by Freeman confirming whether he currently keeps bees at his Mississippi residence, as of this writing. We reached out to Freeman's agency CAA and asked whether Freeman is still beekeeping and whether his effort would be described as a bee sanctuary meant to help the environment, but didn't get a response in time for publication. We will update this story if we hear back. This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. An interesting and highly lucrative con targeting those attempting to sell vehicles (and other high-ticket items) online works like the highly successful Nigerian scam, but while his bit of larceny also typically features businessmen from Africa intent upon closing odd-sounding deals, it plays on the victims' honesty rather than their greed: Nigerian scam [Collected via Facebook, May 2015]There is a scam going around and I was almost a victim of it today. I recently posted an ad on Craig'slist I was contacted by a person that sent me a check for 1500.00 for the item I was selling. When I received the check today it was for the amount of 4000.00. When I asked why the check was for so much they informed me that the extra money was to be shipped via western union to the shipper so the item could be picked up and delivered. I got suspicious and took the check to my bank to make sure this check was ligit. I was informed that it was in fact a fake. The bank told me that if I had cashed this check that it would have come back to me and I would be responsible for the 4000.00 and they would have access to all my banking information. I am asking everyone to please like and share this post to make it go viral so this does not happen to you or anyone you know or any hard working Americans. Here is a picture of the check below. Please take the time to like and share. Lets get this thing viral. [Collected via e-mail, 2003] My husband is currently selling his motorcycle online. Last week when he posted his bike he recieved an email from a hotmail account stating he was interested in buying his bike and he is located in West Africa. He mentioned that he knows someone in the US that owes him money and would like to get our address to meet and make the exchange and that he would pay for all shipping charges. Well, a friend of ours, his cousin is also selling his bike. And he got the same email, but from a different email and name. That sounds funny to me. Well, my husband re-posted his bike yesterday online and he received from another person just about the same email about him residing in West Africa. The scam works like this: Example 1: Dr. Dipo Morgans of Nigeria wants to buy your used car for $5,000. His friend, Mr. Okuta, will be sending you a cashier's check for $8,000. You are to keep $5,000 for the car and send the remaining $3,000 to Dr. Morgans. Example 2: Dr. Dipo Morgans of Nigeria wants to buy your used car for $5,000. He will be sending you a cashier's check for $8,000 on the understanding that you will forward $3,000 of it to the shipping company that will be transporting your car to Africa. In some versions of the scam, the buyer is not an individual but rather an agent for a firm that purchases cars on behalf of others, often diplomats stationed in foreign lands. This car broker is usually located in Africa. The "reason" for the inflated-value check will vary from one attempt to defraud to another. Currency exchange problems will be cited. Or a horrified buyer will realize he's had the check prepared for far too large an amount. Or the check is being sent by a third party for the full amount this other person supposedly owes the buyer. Or it's a refund check for a failed sale for something that would have cost more. Or it would take 30 days to clear a check from Africa, hence the need to have an American third party send the payment. The reasons are many. And varied. And false. Cars or motorcycles aren't the only items to attract this form of scam: those attempting to sell horses have experienced it too. It's not unreasonable to extrapolate those attempting to sell boats will be similarly targeted. What matters is not the nature of the item being offered for sale but its price  it has to be high enough to justify the seller's feeling comfortable in sending thousands of his own dollars to a stranger under the mistaken belief he's already holding an even greater sum in his hand. In another form of the scam, those advertising online for roommates are contacted by prospective apartment-sharers who want to send cashier checks to cover the first few months rent plus a few thousand extra and who require the extra be mailed back to them. Though nothing is being offered for sale, it's the same scheme  the check will turn out to be worthless, but usually only long after the roommate-hunter has mailed his own very good check to the con artist. The scam works because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) requires banks to make money from cashier's, certified, or teller's checks available in one to five days. Consequently, funds from checks that might not be good are often released into payees' accounts long before the checks have been honored by their issuing banks. High quality forgeries can be bounced back and forth between banks for weeks before anyone catches on to their being worthless, by which time victims have long since wired the "overpayments" to the con artists who have just taken them for a ride. Although this scam is in its infancy, real people have already been bilked out of thousands of dollars by it  in some cases tens of thousands. The con has claimed victims in communities across the USA, so don't let your not having heard about it before lull you into a false sense of security. That the game is new doesn't mean it's not dangerous. How to Avoid Falling Victim to Cashier's Check Scams: Additional information:   Espinoza, Richard and Dan Morgolies. "Latest Net Scam Preys on Honest Folks."
  Charleston Gazette.  1 June 2003  (p. D7). Flaum, David.  "Scam Hits Sellers Over Net."
  The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  2 March 2003  (p. G1). Jones, Matthew.  "Beach Police Officers Warn of Fake-Check Web Scam."
  The Virginian-Pilot.  9 January 2003  (p. B4). Kades, Deborah.  "Wisconsin Residents Fall Prey to Used Vehicle, Lottery Scams."
  The Wisconsin State Journal.  12 December 2002. Kristof, Kathy M.  "Nigerian Money Con Targets Small Firms."
  Los Angeles Times.  7 September 2003 (p. C3). Associated Press.
  "Missoula Credit Union Members Taken."  15 March 2003. The only thing the internet loves more than a good prediction is pretending that a good prediction exists. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we've seen some far-reaching attempts to claim that this contagious and deadly disease had been predicted by episodes of "The Simpsons," George Orwell's book "1984," the alleged soothsayer known as Nostradamus, alleged psychic Sylvia Browne, South Korean television shows, the video game Resident Evil, and a novel by Dean Koontz.  far-reaching attempts episodes of "The Simpsons,"  George Orwell's book "1984," alleged soothsayer known as Nostradamus alleged psychic Sylvia Browne, South Korean television shows Resident Evil novel by Dean Koontz In November 2021, as a new variant of COVID-19 emerged that health officials called "omicron," social media users started looking for old pieces of media containing the word so that they could claim that this variant had been "predicted." What they found was a movie from the 1960s:    There really was a movie made in 1963 called "Omicron." And that's where this movie's connection to the current COVID-19 pandemic ends.  The word "omicron" isn't new, and it's use in a 1960s movie isn't all that surprising. "Omicron" is the 15th letter of the Greek alphabet and has been in use for thousands of years. In academic fields, it is often used to represent the 15th item in a list. The World Health Organization announced in May that it would be naming new COVID-19 variants as they emerge by using the the Greek alphabet. While the "delta" variant made headlines, there have been several other variants, such as epsilon, Iota and lambda, that didn't warrant too much concern. When the latest variant emerged, WHO skipped two letters, nu and xi, as they are common surnames, and named the new variant omicron.  World Health Organization announced in May skipped two letters WHO has assigned simple, easy to say and remember labels for key variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, using letters of the Greek alphabet. These labels were chosen after wide consultation and a review of many potential naming systems. WHO convened an expert group of partners from around the world to do so, including experts who are part of existing naming systems, nomenclature and virus taxonomic experts, researchers and national authorities. The word "omicron" is also frequently used by astronomers to name stars. Omicron Persei, Omicron Andromedae, and Omicron Ceti are all real stars in the galaxy. It's not far-fetched to see how a fiction writer could name a fictional planet or a fictional alien "Omicron." Omicron Persei Omicron Andromedae Omicron Ceti In fact, when some social media users encountered the name of this new COVID-19 variant, a number of people noted how "omicron" would make a great name for a sci-fi movie. Some even created and posted fake movie posters. Here's one fake "Omicron" movie poster (left) next to the original movie poster (right) it was created from: original movie poster   While a few fake "Omicron" movie posters were circulated on social media in November 2021, there really have been a few movies with this title. In 1963, Italian writer and director Ugo Gregoretti made a movie called "Omicron" about an alien that took over a human body in order to learn more about earth. Here's one scene from the satirical film:  This is a real movie, but it has practically nothing to do with the current pandemic. Furthermore, using "omicron" in a work of fiction isn't all that uncommon. In 2013, "The Visitor from Planet Omicron" explored how an alien invasion could be thwarted by really good cooking. The plot of "The Visitor from Planet Omicron" would probably make better conspiratorial fodder as it involves a botanical virus and a corrupt government, but this low-budget comedy in no way "predicted" COVID-19.     The animated show "Futurama" also features an alien character named Lrrr who is the ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8. While one could build a conspiracy theory around Lrrr and the other Omicronians starting the COVID-19 pandemic, Lrrr would probably rather eat humans (or force them to make more sitcoms) than kill them with a plague.  ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8  Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is not a work of fiction. It wasn't predicted by old sci-fi movies and it wasn't planned by nefarious forces. The latest variant was named "omicron" because that was the next usable letter in the Greek alphabet. The next variant will likely be called "Pi," the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet, which will undoubtedly lead people to claim that the pandemic was predicted by movies like "Life of Pi" or by Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse who was the first to calculate an accurate approximation of pi.  Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse     How Futurama Is Related to the New Omicron COVID Variant. MARCA, 28 Nov. 2021, https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/tv-shows/2021/11/28/61a327fe268e3e001c8b4576.html. This Is How the Number 3.14 Got the Name Pi. Time, https://time.com/4699479/pi-day-history-origins/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2021. WHO Announces Simple, Easy-to-Say Labels for SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Interest and Concern. https://www.who.int/news/item/31-05-2021-who-announces-simple-easy-to-say-labels-for-sars-cov-2-variants-of-interest-and-concern. Accessed 2 Dec. 2021. On 17 April 2018, Dennis Kucinich, a former U.S. representative from Ohio who is seeking to become the Democratic nominee for the state's upcoming gubernatorial election, filed paperwork disclosing he had received thousands of dollars in speaking fees from an organization that supports Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who is widely considered a war criminal. war criminal According to a supplemental disclosure filed with the Ohio Ethics Commission, Kucinich received $20,000 from the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, a California-based non-profit organization that operates several projects including the Syria Solidarity Movement.  That organization describes itself as dedicated to "Syrian sovereignty" and opposes military intervention in the ongoing civil war in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died. died The Ethics Commission sent us a copy of the disclosure, which was signed by Kucinich:   The Syria Solidarity Movement's web site contains a range of stories that promote the talking points of the Assad regime and its Russian allies, including stories that seek to raise doubts about a deadly 7 April 2018 attack on civilians in which it is widely suspected chemical weapons were used, and that cast unfounded suspicions upon the camera-toting rescue organization broadly known as the White Helmets, who regularly document war crimes in rebel-held regions. doubts suspicions White Helmets Articles about the payment spread on social media, prompting some readers to ask whether this blurb taken from the liberal news site Huffington Post and shared on Facebook alongside the story was true (it is): "The former congressman is seeking the Democratic nomination in Ohios gubernatorial race and recently revealed he accepted $20,000 from a pro-Assad group." Huffington Post In response, Kucinich's spokesman, Andy Juniewicz, told the Associated Press that the event at which Kucinich spoke was pro-peace, and that the former congressman, who has personally met Assad several times, has pressured the embattled Syrian president to admit he used chemical weapons on civilians and to abide by international law. told met The bloody Syrian civil war is now in its seventh year. On 13 April 2018, the U.S., France and the U.K. launched a missile strike against the Assad regime in response to their attack on Douma, where scores of people died and hundreds were injured. The aftermath shed light on an ongoing and disorienting disinformation campaign promulgated by so-called Western "anti-imperialists" who support the Assad regime and help spread propaganda to an English-speaking audience. launched disinformation anti-imperialists According to the Syria Solidarity Movement's "About" page, the organization has its roots in a 2012 email listserve started by Eva Bartlett, a Canadian blogger who regularly makes reality-challenged statements such as claiming that child war victims are actors being "recycled" in attacks staged by the White Helmets, and that Al Quds, a hospital in Aleppo which was bombed in 2016, was in fact never bombed  citing only false Russian government statements as proof. About reality-challenged bombed false Smyth, Julie Carr."Kucinich Was Paid $20K by Pro-Syrian Government Group."
  Associated Press.  17 April 2018. Schladen, Marty."Group That Gave Kucinich $20K Praises Putin, Accuses US of War Crimes."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  18 April 2018. Solon, Olivia."How Syria's White Helmets Became Victims of an Online Propaganda Machine."
  The Guardian.  18 December 2017.