Were Schumer and Pelosi involved in assisting Obama to allocate $150 billion to a country considered an 'enemy of the US'?
As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015.
Claim:  A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents.  Examples:  [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare  FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins:  This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites.  The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below:  Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections."  What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention.  (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were  extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant  As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn.  Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households.  The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."  PPACA Last updated:  5 October 2013 Sweden is often the subject of fierce political debate, with some championing it as an example of a well-run, successful social democracy, while others point to what they see as problems endemic throughout the country. It has also long been the target of misinformation and confusion relating to its integration and assimilation of immigrants, something we have written about in detail in the past.  in detail In the spring of 2018, a meme went viral which presented some of the positive aspects of Swedish society, in particular its health care system. On 25 April, the "Medicare for All" Facebook page shared this meme: meme I live in Sweden. We have social security, affordable health care, strict gun laws, 5 weeks paid annual leave, and [one] year maternity leave. A stay at the hospital for one night costs about $10. Prescription drugs have an annual cap of $210. We're not a communist country, or even strictly socialist. We're socio-democratic, and our freedoms are not inhibited.    The meme cites the Twitter handle @SweResistance as its source. In March 2018, that Twitter user posted a series of tweets making the case for Swedish health care:  posted For example, health care can cost a maximum of around $130 per year for visits to health care centrals etc, hospital.nights costs $12 per night with a $175 roof per month. Prescription drugs have a yearly roof of $250. #healthcare #healthcare  Caroline ?????? #FBR #RESIST (@SweResistance) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018  It appears that "Medicare for All" actually changed some of the details in its meme for reasons unknown. We have fact-checked the claims made in the meme, rather than in @SweResistance's Twitter thread.  Strict gun laws While there is no objective definition of "strict," Sweden does stringently regulate gun ownership and usage by comparison with the United States. According to an analysis by GunPolicy.org, a research project hosted at the University of Sydney, Australia: analysis 5 weeks paid annual leave According to Section 4 of the Annual Leave Act, employees are legally entitled to 25 days' paid leave each year. Section 4 One year's maternity leave This is not quite right. Sweden doesn't have maternity leave, exactly; instead, it offers its inhabitants exceptionally generous parental leave. Parents of a newly born or adopted child are entitled to 480 combined days of parental leave, which they can split between themselves in whatever way they choose regardless of gender. In 2017, fathers claimed 28 percent of all parental leave days, according to government statistics.  statistics For 390 of the 480 days available, parents are paid at a rate of almost 80 percent their normal salary, according to Swedish government figures. The parental leave doesn't need to be taken right away, either. Parents in Sweden can continue to take days off until their child turns eight years old. figures The claim of one year of maternity leave ignores the reality of how the Swedish system works, but it is absolutely possible that a new mother  depending on the agreement she has with the child's other parent  could claim 365 days or more paid leave. A stay at the hospital for one night costs about $10 This is true. According to official government figures published on the Sweden.se web site, the maximum fee for a hospital visit is 100 Kroner (SEK.) Based on the exchange rate on 26 April 2018, that's $11.56, which is closer to the $12 stated by @SweResistance. figures Prescription drugs have an annual cap of $210. This is also basically true, although the dollar amount again depends on the exchange rate. According to Swedish government figures, "nobody pays more than SEK 2,200 in a given 12-month period" for prescription medication. (That's the equivalent of $254 as of April 2018.) Again, that's very close to the $250 figure provided by @SweResistance. It's not clear where the figure of $210 originates.  figures Overall, the meme accurately states some of the details of Sweden's social democratic institutions. However, like most politically-charged social media content, it leaves out important context. The most obvious thing to know about Sweden's famous "cradle to grave" social safety net and good working conditions is that they are largely paid for by Sweden's equally famous high taxes. Nonetheless, polling shows that Swedes are largely satisfied with the public services they receive in return. high taxes. satisfied Palma, Bethania. "Crime in Sweden, Part I: Is Sweden the 'Rape Capital' of Europe?"
 Snopes.com. 29 March 2017. Government of Sweden. "Annual Leave Act."
 Government of Sweden. Accessed 26 April 2018. TT/The Local. "Dads in Sweden Took More Paternity Leave Than Ever in 2017."
 TT/The Local. 17 January 2018. Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices. "10 Things That Make Sweden Family-Friendly."
Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices/Sweden.se. Accessed 26 April 2018. Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices. "Health Care in Sweden."
Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices/Sweden.se. Accessed 26 April 2018. Pomerleau, Kyle. "How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending."
 Tax Foundation. 10 June 2015. TT/The Local. "Here's How Happy Swedes Are With the Services Their Taxes Pay For."
 TT/The Local. 16 December 2016. One of the most polarizing events ofthe Obama administration was an11 September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, leaving four Americans dead and years of partisan bickering in its wake. In May 2016, comments made by Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, became popular on social media. The controversy aboutGowdy's remarks began with a 15 May 2016 letter [PDF] sent to Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, by Elijah Cummings and Adam Smith, two House committee members, objecting to the former's incessant demands for information about Benghazi from the Department of Defense (DOD): PDF We are writing to object to your repeated, unnecessary, and ever-changing demands for information from the Department of Defense. Our nation's warfighters are charged with a solemn responsibility, but your evolving list of increasing demands is now putting a strain on the Pentagon that is completely unwarranted, unreasonable, and unjustified. Contrary to your claims that the Select Committee has made "significant breakthroughs," the information we have received over the past two years is consistent with many previous investigations into the attack, including those conducted by the independent House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Committee on Armed Services. In some cases, witnesses have provided new details, but they do not alter the fundamental conclusions of these previous investigations. None of the witnesses has provided any evidence to support reckless allegations made by Republicans to justify the creation of the Select Committee, and we have obtained no evidence that the Defense Department was ordered to stand down or withhold critical aid to those in need.  In that letter, Cummings and Smith cited January 2016 remarks made by Gowdy's former Chief Counsel, retired Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, that they contended showed Gowdy's investigation to be unnecessary: Chief Counsel Unfortunately, your letter failed to include any statements from your own former Republican Chief Counsel  a retired three-star general with more than 33 years of service in the United States Army who repeatedly commended the military's actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials. For example, on January 8, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During that interview, your former Chief Counsel stated: I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I dont disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed. Your former Chief Counsel acknowledged that it is clear from the time and distances involved that none of the military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives. He stated: And, again, sir, I dont mean to suggest that anything could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi, and I think you would agree with that. In addition, on January 13, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with the Defense Departments former Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash. During that interview, your former Republican Chief Counsel stated: I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September if Benghazi, Libya. So let me start with that positing or that stipulation ... I dont see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is were caught by surprise On 9/11, weve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner  and you can debate whats timely, whats untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi. The conclusions of your former Republican Chief Counsel match almost exactly the findings  from more than two years ago  of the House Committee on Armed Services, which conducted its own investigation into the attacks in Benghazi. Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican Chairman of the Committee who led that investigation, concluded at the time, I think Ive pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldnt have done more than we did. The letter also referenced unflattering comments made about Gowdy's handling of the investigation by fellow Republicans:   The letter concluded by saying that Gowdy had personally "damaged the credibility of the Select Committee beyond repair." Pundits and media critics characterized some of the Committee's activities to be a larger part of a "stand down conspiracy theory" continually unsupported by factual analyses of the events of that day. On 18 May 2016, the Select Committee on Benghazi Democrats published a videoto their YouTube channel showing Gowdy being questioned by a Fox News interviewer about Gen. Chipman's supposedly having said that no U.S. military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives. A description published alongside that video said that Gowdy had "finally conceded" a key point:   After years of repeated Republican conspiracy theories that Secretary Hillary Clinton or others ordered the U.S. military to stand down in Benghazi or otherwise prevented a military response that could have saved American lives, Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, finally conceded in an interview on FOX News that the military could not have gotten to Benghazi in time to save the lives of the four Americans killed that night: Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I dont think there is any issue with respect to that  they couldnt. His admission comes after Democrats released statements from his Chief Counsel earlier this week from closed-door interviews conducted by the Select Committee with Defense Secretary Panetta and his Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash. In response, Benghazi Select Committee Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, and House Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff issued the following statements: Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong, said Ranking Member Cummings. Based on the Chairmans admission today, I call on the Select Committee to stop harassing the Pentagon with baseless demands, release the transcripts of our witness interviews, and stop wasting millions of taxpayer dollars dragging out the investigation closer and closer to the election. During the Fox News interview, Gowdy was asked whether General Chipman had in fact "said from the beginning that nothing could be done to save the four Americans in Benghazi."  Gowdy confusingly denied that was true, contesting that General Chipman's remark, as quoted by Cummings and Smith in their letter, was a "very small point" taken out of context, then himself stated that U.S. troops could not have reached Benghazi in time to save lives: Q: There's a report that's floating out there that says your attorney, General Dana Chipman, said from the beginning that nothing could be done to save the four Americans in Benghazi in September of 2012.  Is that true? A: No, sir.  Dana Chipman is an honorable man, he served his country with great distinction, and he served this committee with great distinction. That [letter] was a transcript from one question he asked Leon Panetta and Jeremy Bash.  When you see the full transcript, and you will, then you will see what Dana was talking about was a very small point. The posture of the troops, the order that was given by Panetta and the President, how that order was received, all that is what we want to ask people about. Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don't think there's any issue with respect to that. They couldn't.  The next issue is, why could you not?  Why were you not positioned to do it? Multiple online references to this interview maintained that Gowdy had "accidentally" admitted that no lives could have been saved in Benghazi, but that characterization was inaccurate: hespoke deliberately during an interview in which he appeared specifically to discuss the issue, and he followed up his statement that military forces could not have rescued the Benghazi victims by questioning why troops "were not positioned to do it." Whether Gowdy would have otherwise stated such had the controversial letter not been leaked was a matter of speculation, but itistrue that heaffirmed that help could not have arrived in time to save the lives of the victims of the Benghazi attacks.  Daly, Matthew.  "Gowdy Remarks Stir Partisan Benghazi Feud."
  Associated Press.  18 May 2016. McAuliff, Michael.  "Trey Gowdys Former Top Lawyer Undercuts the Benghazi Committee."
  Huffington Post.  16 May 2016. U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi.  "More Than 10,000 Days of Delays: Obama Admins Delays of Benghazi Documents Equivalent to Over 27 Years."
  18 May 2016. If the nation hits the debt ceiling later this month without it being raised by Congress, economists predict a wide spread of economic harm: higher interest rates, lower economic growth and plunging consumer confidence in the United States and overseas. One particularly high-profile sign of economic distress would be a plummeting Dow Jones Industrial Average. During anappearanceon ABCsThis Week With George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., cited that scenario as one of the reasons why Congress should take action soon. Stephanopoulos asked Schumer whether both sides were posturing and playing with fire on the debt ceiling, which is the legal limit to how much debt the government can shoulder. Schumer said, You don't negotiate over something like the debt ceiling because -- at which point Stephanopoulos interjected, Other presidents have done it. Schumer responded, No. The one time that it was really done in this kind of way, (when it wasnt just) a deadline and you had to decide (on) abortion or something else, was in 2011. We went right up to the deadline. The stock market lost 2,000 points, $18 billion was lost by the American people. We wondered whether Schumer was right about the stock market losing 2,000 points. So we looked at historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most popular measure of the stock market. On July 21, 2011, the Dowreached12,724 -- its high point in the months immediately preceding the debt ceiling fight. For the next 10 days, Congress squabbled over raising the debt ceiling. Then, between July 31 and Aug. 2, the White House and congressional leaders reached and implemented a deal that became known as the Budget Control Act of 2011. By Aug. 2, when the crisis was effectively over, the Dow stood at 11,866, a drop of 858 points. Thats less than the 2,000 points Schumer cited. However, the Dow continued to tumble for another two months, due in large part to repercussions of the debt ceiling debate, particularly the downgrading of the United States credit rating byStandard & Poorson Aug. 5. By Oct. 3, the Dow had bottomed out at 10,655 -- a decline of 2,069 points from its pre-debt ceiling peak, and its lowest level in about a year. So if you include the aftershocks of the debt ceiling fight, Schumer is correct that the Dow fell by 2,000 points. (You can see the decline as a line charthere.) That said, its also worth noting that the recovery was almost as quick as the decline. It took only until Jan. 25, 2012 -- about three and a half months after the low point -- for all of the pre-debt ceiling losses to be recouped. By Jan. 25, the Dow hit 12,758. And as Schumer was speaking onThis Week, the most recent Dow close was 15,072 -- an 18 percent increase over the pre-debt ceiling high, which had been about two years and three months earlier. Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, said the Dows subsequent recovery is irrelevant. Of course (the Dow) came back, but that is of little comfort to anyone who was at or nearing retirement during those several months, he said. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring a day, that drop is incredibly important, and not to be trivialized. .... And this is all from a default that didnt happen. Still, we think its important to note that the 2,000 points the Dow lost didnt stay off for years, or even permanently, as some viewers might assume. Our rating Schumer said that because of the 2011 debt ceiling fight, the stock market lost 2,000 points. If you count the aftermath of the deal that avoided a debt ceiling breach, which included a historic downgrade of the United States creditworthiness rating, then Schumer is right that the Dow fell by 2,000 points. Still, Schumer makes it sound as if the drop happened right away. Actually, it dropped at the time of fight and continued to drop for another two months after the United States' credit rating was downgraded. We rate Schumers claim Mostly True. As the protests against an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation escalated in November 2016, environmentalist activists began targeting financial institutions backing the Dakota Access Pipeline and urging supporters to boycott them with various memes shared around social media, or petitions calling on the banks to pull their funds out of the project:   Financial documents from Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline builder, lists a number of large banking institutions that have provided credit for the project, including: Credit Suisse; Royal Bank of Canada; Suntrust Bank; BNP Paribas; HSBC; Citibank; Morgan Stanley; Wells Fargo, Bank of America; and JP Morgan Chase. documents The Standing Rock Sioux, who fear the pipeline's route presents a threat to their sacred sites and water supply, have been fighting the project since 2014, but protesters calling themselves "water protectors," lead by the tribe, have been camping near the site since April 2016 in an effort to stop the project. As of late November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the land, and the governor of North Dakota, have made statements indicating they want the thousands of demonstrators encamped near the project site to leave. statements But the demonstration and continued opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux have turned an oil pipeline project into an intensifying cause that has drawn international scrutiny, an open letter from BankTrack notes: BankTrack The debacle has escalated into a national crisis and an international scandal. A member of the UNs Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has been deployed to North Dakota to monitor the situation, while President Obama has intervened to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to examine alternative routes for the pipeline. Meanwhile, the protest at Standing Rock is backed by over a million  and growing  allies worldwide, with numerous solidarity actions springing up across the United States and beyond, including protests at EPFI headquarters and outlets. The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project. Given the presumed Indigenous rights commitments of EPFIs, it is for us inexplicable that gross violations of Native land titles, threats to water sources and the desecration of burial grounds have not been identified early on as reasons for EPFIs to not provide funding for this project. However, this unfortunately fits into a documented and consistent pattern of disrespect of local communities and Indigenous rights by EPFI-backed projects worldwide. We understand that it is not the role of the EP Association to intervene in specific project situations. Nevertheless, we consider it crucial for the credibility of the Equator Principles as an effective safeguard against violation of Indigenous Peoples rights that your meeting calls upon the EPFIs involved in financing DAPL that they take swift action to stop the ongoing violation of the rights of Native Americans. The letter urges the banks to halt further loan payments and raises the concern that the project falls out of line with Equator Principles, a consortium that sets minimum standards to which signing institutions are expected to adhere on matters of community and environmental accountability. According to Energy Transfer Partners, the end project will be a 1,172-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline: ....that will connect the rapidly expanding Bakken and Three Forks production areas in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois" enabling the domestic production of light sweet crude oil "to reach major refining markets in a more direct, cost-effective, safer and environmentally responsible manner. The pipeline is expected to carry 470,000 barrels of oil per day. Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren has said the company will not reroute the pipeline. Frijns, Johan. "An open letter to the Equator Principles Association."
BankTrack. 7 November 2016. Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Environmentalists Target Bankers Behind Pipeline."
The New York Times. 7 November 2016. The Associated Press."Trumps Stock in Dakota Access Pipeline Company Raises Concern."
Fortune.26 November 2016. On 10 November 2015, the web comic The Oatmeal rekindled interest in an incident from the early life of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry: the 1947 crash of Pan Am Flight 121 during its leg from Karachi to Istanbul, an accident that killed seven crew members and seven passengers and left Roddenberry, who was a member of the flight crew, with "a couple of broken ribs and a bruise or two": interest   The Oatmeal comic (which can be viewed in its entirety here) related that after the plane crashed, 26-year-old Gene Roddenberry (a pilot who flew with the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and worked as a commercial pilot for Pan Am airlines after the war) pulled passengers from the burning wreckage and then led them to a village where they were able to call for help. While some readers were skeptical about the fantastical story,The Oatmeal provided a link to its source material,Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry, which recounts the incident at length in Chapter 5. here source Although The Oatmeal described Roddenberry as the "co-pilot" of the flight, other sourcesidentifiedRoddenberry asthe "third officer without flight responsibilities" or "a deadheading" pilot. Nonetheless, Roddenberry did helm a portion the flight while the captain took a break, and there's no disputing the fact that he helped 22 people survive the crash of Pan Am Flight 121 in 1947 after an engine fire forced the flight down in a desert and the plane ignited: sources helped The flight's Third Officer, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry, of River Edge, New Jersey, purser Anthony Volpe and stewardess Jane Bray helped evacuate the wrecked airliner. "We who could jumped out. The other survivors were handed down and we dragged them away and tried to do what we could for them. We had to carry the Rani away. She had a head injury and had lost some teeth and was in a rather bad way, but we finally quieted her,"Bray recalled. "All we could do then was watch while the plane burned, slowly at first and then fiercely. It must have burned for hours, but I do not remember too well. There wasn't any sound but those flames. Everybody who died must have been killed outright." As described in Star Trek Creator, Roddenberry was instrumental in helping to save surviving passengers: The second the plane came to a rest, Roddenberry, Volpe, and Bray quickly began evacuating their charges through the ruptured fuselage. As the fire in the front of the plane approached their section, they knew they only had seconds to get everyone out. Moving as fast as they could, they pushed open the cabin door and guided the uninjured passengers out. Gene and Tony handed down the injured, then the uninjured passengers on the ground dragged them to safety. Even with the composed and focused actions of the surviving crew, the evacuation did not go smoothly. After most of the passengers had been removed, the seatbelt of the Majarani of Pheleton would not release, trapping her in the burning wreckage. The large woman was hysterical. Gene forced the belt open and rescued the Indian royal. She and her son, the prince, were put with the others on the sand, away from the plane and the fire. Gene pulled out several people who were themselves on fire and used a pillow he found on the ground to smother the flames. On board, the flames were growing in intensity, so he could only make a couple of trips into the passenger compartment. The last passenger he pulled out died in his arms. The wind changed, blowing the burning gasoline directly over the ship's wreckage; Gene and Volpe were unable to rescue any more passengers out of the plane. The other passengers safe for the moment, the trio turned their thoughts to their friends on the flight deck. They ran around the burning fuselage and wings to the front of the plane. Looking in the cockpit windows, they could see the flight crew sitting at their stations, slumped over their seats, dead or unconscious. Frantically pounding on the windows, Volpe, Bray, and Roddenberry tried to rouse their friends until the flames drove them back. The Roddenberry Foundation recounted a similar version of the story, noting that the creator ofStar Trek was awarded a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts after the crash: recounted At war's end, he joined Pan American World Airways. It was on a flight from Calcutta that his plane lost two engines and caught fire in flight, crashing at night in the Syrian desert. As the senior surviving officer, Roddenberry sent two Englishmen swimming across the Euphrates River in quest of the source of a light he had observed just prior to the crash impact. The Englishmen reached a Syrian military outpost, which sent a small plane to investigate. Roddenberry returned with the small plane to the outpost, where he broadcast a message that was relayed to Pan Am, which sent a stretcher plane to the rescue. Roddenberry later received a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts during and after the crash. A new school curriculum based on The New York Times' The 1619 Project faced opposition from U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton in July 2020, after he called it racially divisive and revisionist. based As the U.S. grappled with its history of racism amidst police custody killings of Black people in 2020, The 1619 Project, an ongoing initiative named for the year that the first slave ship arrived on American shores, became the center of a debate. The educational curriculum was launched alongside The New York Times Magazine's August 2019 special issue and aims to "reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." Partnering with the Pulitzer Center, the curriculum is freely available online and is being used by teachers across the country. It includes essays, poems, photographs, and fiction from contributors, and was praised for its examination of slavery's impact on the present day. The 1619 Project launched special issue aims curriculum praised As Cotton launched an attack on the initiative by introducing legislation that would prevent the use of federal funds to spread the optional curriculum in classrooms, Snopes readers asked us if in his criticism of the project he had actually called slavery a necessary evil. launched He did use those words. But he also claimed his meaning was misinterpreted.  In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Cotton said [emphasis ours]: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we cant understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction. Later, Cotton took to Twitter and appeared to clarify that he himself wasnt backing the idea of slavery being a "necessary evil": Twitter   Although Cotton claimed he was citing the views of the founding fathers, there did not appear to be a record of them saying this exact phrase, according to CNN. But historians argued that some of the founding fathers believed slavery to be necessary, and more believed it to be evil, while others reported there was little overlap between the two perspectives. did not appear CNN historians argued others reported But Nikole Hannah-Jones, writer and creator of The 1619 Project pushed back on his characterization of his own words and the views of the founding fathers, citing historian Joshua Rothman who categorically stated that slavery was a choice defended or accepted by white Americans for generations. Hannah-Jones argued that Cottons use of the word as denoted agreement with the statement. She also said that the curriculum was meant to be "supplementary" and was not intended to "supplant U.S. history curriculum." pushed back citing supplementary In summary, given that Cotton himself defended and clarified his use of the phrase "necessary evil," we rate this claim as Correct attribution. Foran, Clare. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Pitches Bill to Prohibit Use of Federal Funds to Teach 1619 Project."
 CNN. 24 July 2020. Jesuthasan, Meerabelle. "The 1619 Project Sparks Dialogue and Reflection in Schools Nationwide."
 Pulitzer Center. 20 December 2019. Lockwood, Frank E. "Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton Targets Curriculum on Slavery."
 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 26 July 2020. Porter, Tom. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Called Slavery a 'Necessary Evil' in an Attack on a New York Times Project Exploring America's History of Racism."
 Business Insider. 27 July 2020. Pulitzer Center.  "The 1619 Project Curriculum."
  Accessed 29 July 2020. The New York Times.  "The 1619 Project."
  14 August 2019. Zurcher, Anthony. "US Senator Tom Cotton Defends Slavery Remarks."
 BBC News. 27 July 2020. One of President Barack Obamas signature issues at the moment is a push to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Its such a popular policy, he said in aspeechon March 5, 2014, that even Republicans have little quarrel with it. When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage, Obama said, not only is it good policy, but the majority of the country, including half of Republicans, agree with it. We wondered whether polling data backed up this claim. So we looked at independent polls taken recently that asked about the minimum wage. A review of the polling data suggests a more nuanced situation than Obamas claim suggests. Our first look at the data showed that a minimum-wage hike is popular among Americans broadly. For instance, when theCBS News-New York Timespollasked, Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? in February 2014, the poll found 65 percent support. And that was actually down a bit from the 72 percent support registered in the January edition of the poll. Similarly, aPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll from January asked whether respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour and found 73 percent support. But what about Republicans specifically? More than half of Republicans favor a minimum-wage increase, polls found, but in most of these polls, less than half of Republicans supported raising the wage to $10.10, the amount Obama is seeking. One poll that did not specify a target amount for the minimum-wage hike was conducted byQuinnipiac University. It asked, Would you support or oppose raising the national minimum wage, which is now $7.25 an hour? Among Republicans, 52 percent expressed support, while 45 percent said they opposed it. That provides some support to Obamas claim. But once respondents were asked by other pollsters about the $10.10 figure -- a roughly 40 percent increase from todays federal minimum wage -- Republican support sagged. The clearest example is aCBS-New York Timespollfrom February that asked, As you may know, the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Republicans expressed 42 percent support, 54 percent opposition. Another clear example was anABC News-Washington Postpollfrom December, 2013 that asked, The minimum wage in this country is now $7.25 an hour. What do you think it should be? Among Republicans, only 21 percent favored keeping it the same or lowering it, but even fewer respondents -- 7 percent -- favored a minimum wage in excess of $10. Two other polls showed Republican support close to 50 percent, but falling just short. However, the differences were within the margin of sampling error -- it's possible that more than half of Republicans were in support of a $10.10 wage, though also possible that the actual support level was even lower than the official result. ACBS-New York Timespollfrom January that asked the same question as the February poll found that Republicans expressed 48 percent support, 51 percent opposition to a $10.10 wage. And anNBC News-Wall Street Journalpollfrom December 2013asked, I'm going to mention a number of different amounts and for each one, please tell me if you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose raising the hourly minimum wage to that amount. When presented with the $10.10 rate, 47 percent of Republicans expressed support. One poll clearly supported Obamas position. The JanuaryPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll found 53 percent of Republicans backing a $10.10 minimum wage, with 43 percent opposed. The significance of the $10.10 figure is not academic. According to a March 6accountin theWashington Post, early last year, White House strategists rejected (the $10.10 figure), worried that it could destroy jobs and anger the business community just as the regulation-heavy Affordable Care Act was about to take effect. Instead, former officials say, the White House settled on a more cautious path,unveiling a $9-an-hour minimum wageproposal  a target even lower than Obamahad proposedduring the 2008 campaign. However, thePostreported, the lower amount disappointed advocates for the working poor, as well as congressional Democrats, who were already pushing to set the $7.25 wage closer to $10 an hour. Over the past year, Obama reconsidered, casting off initial concerns in favor of unifying his party ahead of this falls midterm elections. In other words, White House officials had long realized there was a difference in the degree of public support for a $10.10 minimum wage and a smaller hike, so it would be misleading for Obama to now imply that majority Republican support for an unspecified minimum-wage hike means that Republicans automatically support the presidents proposal to raise the wage to $10.10. Our ruling Obama said, When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage ... half of Republicans agree with it. Republicans do support a minimum-wage hike if you don't specify a dollar figure. But once you mention the $10.10 target Obama wants, his case gets shakier. We rate the claim Mostly True. An image graphic supposedly documenting the various misdeeds of the "Pelosi Crime Family" -- including perjury, securities fraud, and simply being rich -- was circulated on social media in January 2019. We've examined each of the accusations leveled within against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her husband, her father, her brother, and her son individually and found them to be largely overstated, misrepresented, or based on unreliable information:     Was Nancy Pelosi's father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., a constant companion of Benjamin "Benny Tratta" Magliano? Status: UNPROVEN The facts: This claim is a verbatim reproduction of the introductory paragraph of a June 2015 blog post published on the Typepad blog "Bitterqueen" by Phillip Crawford, Jr., the author of the 2015 book The Mafia and the Gay, which was reportedly based on FBI files obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Bitterqueen The Mafia and the Gay Crawford wrote that Peter Galiano, a boxer who was caught up in a draft-dodging scheme in the 1940s, told federal agents in 1947 that D'Alesandro was a "constant companion" of the Boston mobster. When the FBI examined these associations in 1961, however, before D'Alesandro received a presidential appointment to the Federal Renegotiation Board, Galiano said that his statements were based on rumor and hearsay and that he couldn't recall where he had come across that information: 1947: Peter C. Galiano, Baltimore, Maryland, advised that Thomas D'Alesandro was a constant companion of John Cataneo, Benjamin Magliano, also known as Benny Trotta, and [redacted], who were described as "local big-time gamblers." Mr. Galiano stated that these individuals had worked hard for Thomas D'Alesandro's re-election to Congress and in his campaign at that time to become Mayor of Baltimore. Peter C. Galiano, Baltimore, Maryland, advised during the current investigation that his previous statements were based only on rumor and hearsay. He stated that he could not recall who gave him this information or whether or not there was any truth to the allegations. He further explained that he was never well acquainted with any of the men he had mentioned and had no personal knowledge of their affairs. Galiano wasn't the only person to accuse D'Alesandro of having ties to the Boston mob, but those allegations were never officially corroborated and they never resulted in any charges being brought against D'Alesandro. In fact, D'Alesandro was appointed to the Federal Renegotiation Board by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 despite an FBI investigation into those alleged associations. Does Nancy Pelosi own Goat Hill Pizza, a restaurant suspected of harboring trafficking? Status:  The Facts: Nancy Pelosi does not own a pizza parlor, and Goat Hill Pizza is not suspected of harboring child trafficking by any law enforcement agencies. This claim first started circulating in 2016 as part of a larger nonsensical and repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory known as "Pizzagate," in which online trolls asserted that innocuous words such as "pizza" and "cheese" were actually code words referring to child sex trafficking. Although this conspiracy theory was largely focused on the Washington, D.C,. pizza parlor "Comet Ping Pong," Pelosi was also accused of running her own pedophilia ring back in San Francisco out of Goat Hill Pizza. 2016 Pizzagate code words Why? Because a single document from 2004 listed "Philip@GoatHill.com" as the email address for Nancy Pelosi. While conspiracy theorists may contend that this tidbit of information is somehow proof that a high-profile politician was running a pedophilia ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor, a much more plausible (and far less sensational) explanation is evident: it was a filing error. 2004 Philip DeAndrade co-founded Goat Hill Pizza in the 1970s, but by 1987 he was working on Nancy Pelosi's staff. It's likely that DeAndrade accidentally put his own email address, instead of Pelosi's, into a form. Regardless, one spurious appearance of an email address can in no way be construed as proof that Pelosi owns a pizza parlor. Furthermore, the only persons who have suspected this pizza parlor of facilitating child trafficking are online conspiracy theorists and not genuine law enforcement agencies. staff Did Nancy Pelosi hold a secret fundraiser for Islamist and Hamas-linked groups? Status:  The Facts: Despite the wording suggesting that Pelosi hosted a "secret fundraiser" to for Islamist- and Hamas-linked groups, this claim refers to a fundraiser held for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The Islamist and Hamas-linked groups portion of the claim is largely based on the fact that Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), attended the fundraiser. A number of other Muslim groups were also reportedly in attendance at the fundraiser, along with Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress. The Daily Caller was among the first to draw attention to Awad's attendance at this fundraiser: Daily Caller Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi headlined a high-dollar fundraiser in May that was attended by U.S.-based Islamist groups and individuals linked by the U.S. government to the Hamas jihad group and to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood movement. The donors at the undisclosed May 16 event included Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, according to data provided by the nonpartisan Investigative Project on Terrorism. The CAIR group was named an unindicted conspirator in a 2007 trial of a Hamas money-smuggling group. While it's true that CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator during the 2007 case of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), an Islamic charity eventually convicted of funding Islamic militant groups, CAIR was not charged with any criminal activity in connection with that case. Furthermore, CAIR was one of nearly 250 organizations who were given the "unindicted co-conspirator" label during the HLF case: 250 organizations CAIR is an aggressive Muslim civil liberties organization, modeled on the Anti Defamation League, that has made it a target for criticism. It was indeed named as an unindicted co-conspirator or joint venturer in the Holy Land Foundation case -- an Islamic charity that in 2008 was convicted of funding Islamic militant groups. But CAIR was not alone in that designation; nearly 250 other organizations and individuals were also named. The federal government said the organizations were included on the list in order to produce evidence at the trial, but the district court and a federal appeals court later ruled that it had been a mistake to make the list public. The New York Times also reported that "unindicted co-conspirators" on this list were not charged with any crimes: reported Technically, the prosecution can introduce statements made by any individual or organization named as an unindicted co-conspirator without such statements being dismissed as hearsay. Those on the list have not been charged with anything, but they are concerned that the label of unindicted co-conspirator will forever taint them, particularly if the Holy Land group is convicted, and that they will have no legal recourse. CAIR, of course, also denied having links to any terrorist organizations. denied So Pelosi and other Democrats held a Democratic fundraiser in 2012 that was attended by a number of leaders from various Muslim groups. While some critics may label groups such as CAIR as "Hamas-linked," that label is disputed. Was Nancy Pelosi's son, Paul Pelosi, Jr., charged with securities fraud? Status: false The Facts: In July 2014, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced they were bringing fraud charges against four individuals involved with the company Natural Blue Resources Inc. Although Paul Pelosi, Jr. did work for that company, he was not one of the individuals charged with securities fraud by the SEC, who didn't even mention Pelosi Jr.'s name when they first announced the charges: announced The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges against four individuals and a microcap company for concealing from investors that two lawbreakers ran the company. According to the SECs orders instituting administrative proceedings, the mission of Natural Blue Resources Inc. was to create, acquire, or otherwise invest in environmentally-friendly companies, including an initiative to locate, purify, and sell water recovered from underground aquifers in New Mexico and other areas with depleting water resources. What investors didnt know was that two individuals with prior law violations -- James E. Cohen and Joseph Corazzi -- secretly controlled the operational and management decisions of Natural Blue while calling themselves outside consultants. This arrangement enabled them to be de facto officers of Natural Blue and personally profit from the company without disclosing their past brushes with the law to investors. Cohen, who lives in Windermere, Fla., was previously incarcerated for financial fraud. Corazzi, who resides in Albuquerque, N.M., was previously charged with violating federal securities laws and permanently barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company ... The other two individuals charged in the case are Toney Anaya and Erik Perry, who were former chief executive officers at Natural Blue. The SECs orders find that they misled investors by failing to disclose that Cohen and Corazzi were running the company in spite of their criminal or disciplinary histories. Subsequent SEC filings listed Paul Pelosi, Jr. as President and Board member of Natural Blue from 24 August 2009 to 10 January 2010. So Nancy Pelosi's son was involved with a company that was charged with securities fraud years later, he was never personally charged with a crime. filings Was Nancy Pelosi's brother, Franklin D. Roosevelt D'Alesandro, charged with lying during a rape trial? Status:  The Facts: Nancy Pelosi's brother, Franklin D. Roosevelt D'Alesandro, was charged with perjury during a rape trial in the 1950s. However, he was eventually acquitted of those charges. acquitted In 1953, D'Alesandro and 13 other youths went on trial in Baltimore for "moral charges" involving two young girls, aged 11 and 14. D'Alesandro, who was 20 at the time and was charged with statutory rape, testified that he had never seen the victims before. Although he was eventually acquitted of the rape charges (he was the only defendant to be acquitted during the trials), he was later charged with perjury. trial The Denton Journal reported at the time that "The perjury charge resulted from that trial. The state contended D'Alesandro lied in denying he had ever seen the girls before, or had been in a car with three other youths who testified at their trials he was with them." reported Just as with the rape charges, however, D'Alesandro was eventually acquitted of the perjury charges: A jury of four women and eight men deliberated 6 hour and 16 minutes here last night before acquitting Franklin Roosevelt D'Alesandro, 21-year-old son of Baltimore's mayor, of a perjury charge. The "not guilty" verdict, delivered in a loud voice by Mrs. Stella B. Hughes, jury foreman, to a tension-taught crowd in Wicomico County Circuit Court, ended a 5-day trial. Young D'Alesandro, calm and poised throughout the long hours of testimony and argument and seemingly endless wait on the verdict, was jubilant when he heard the decision. After receiving a kiss on the hand from his fiancee and hugs and kisses from his crying mother, D'Alesandro planted a kiss on the cheek of Joseph Sherbow, former Baltimore Circuit Court judge, who headed the defense staff. It was Sherbow who successfully defended young D'Alesandro on a statutory rape charge in Baltimore last November when he was the only one of 16 defendents to be acquitted in a series of morals trials resulting from sex charges brought by two young girl cousins .. "In order to acquit this defendant," Asst. State's Atty. J Harold Grady said. "You must be convinced these eight witness who appeared before you entered into a conspiracy and made up their story out of whole cloth." The defense countered that the only evidence of contraindications came from a "parade of trash." Chief witness for the defense Mary Ann Jankowski, 20-year-old petite blonde fiancee of the defendant. She testified that at the time of the alleged sex offenses last July, young D'Alessandro spent every evening with her and her parents. Although it's possible that D'Alessandro's political power had something to do with his acquittal (whether directly or indirectly), the fact of the matter is that he was found not guilty of any crimes. Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul has a net worth of over $200 million? Status: UNPROVEN The Facts: Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul is indeed a successful businessman and investor, but the claim that he has a net worth of $202 million (which has nothing to do with criminal activity) appears to be based on a misreading of a 2015 article published by the National Review. The conservative publication reported at the time that Pelosi (not specifically her husband) listed assets worth between $43.4 million and $202 million on her 2014 financial disclosure forms: National Review Though financial-disclosure forms list only ranges of assets and liabilities, Pelosi listed between $42.4 million and $199.5 million in assets in 2013, which was enough for Bloomberg Business to deem her the richest member of House leadership from either party. By 2014, she and her husband, investment banker Paul Pelosi, were doing even better: She reported between $43.4 million and $202 million in assets. The "Pelosi Crime Family" meme refers to the highest possible figure within a very broad range and incorrectly refers to this number as Pelosi's net worth. However, the figure actually states the estimated value of Pelosi's assets and doesn't offset it with other financial aspects such as debt: [T]he financial disclosures dont just show substantial assets -- the Pelosis have gone into lots of debt, too. Pelosi and her husband are currently paying mortgages on seven properties, totaling between approximately $9.8 million and $46.5 million in 2014, likely accruing big tax savings in the process. The couple also opened home-equity lines of credit on four of these properties, adding between approximately $1.7 million and $6.5 million to their liabilities. A 2015 Politico article reported Pelosi's net worth at around $30 million. $30 million Sherman, Jake.  "Boehner's Condo, Pelosi's Vineyard: A Peek at Leaders' Wealth."
  Politico.  15 June 2015. Denton Journal.  "Wicomic Jury Acquits D'Alesandro of Perjury."
  28 May 1954. Rogers, Brooke  "Nancy Pelosis Life in the 0.1 Percent."
  The National Review.  1 July 2015. Munro, Neil.  "Pelosi Holds Secret Fundraiser with Islamists, Hamas-Linked Groups."
  The Daily Caller.  2 November 2012. The News.  "Youths Trial Underway In Baltimore."
  30 October 1953. SEC.gov.  "SEC Announces Charges in Scheme to Secretly Enable Lawbreakers to Run Microcap Company."
  16 July 2014. SEC.gov.  "SEC Announces Charges in Scheme to Secretly Enable Lawbreakers to Run Microcap Company."
  16 July 2014. Kessler, Glenn.  "The King Hearings: Is CAIR a 'Terrorist Organization?'"
  The Washington Post.  10 March 2011. Lindsey, Robert.  "20 Years After a 'Summer of Love,' Haight-Ashbury Looks Back."
  The New York Times.  2 July 1987. Aischm Gergor.  "Dissecting the #PizzaGate Conspiracy Theories."
  The New York Times.  10 December 2016. Crawford, Phillip.  "FBI Files: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's Father Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. Was 'Constant Companion' of Notorious Mobster Benjamin Magliano."
  BitterQueen.  4 July 2015. In the wake of revelations that President Donald Trump's son had met with a Kremlin-linked lawyer during the 2016 presidential election, a photograph purporting to show the President with his arm around that same lawyer spread widely on Facebook in July 2017.  The woman in the photograph and Natalia Veselnitskaya share Russian nationality and some physical features (long brown hair and petite builds) but are two different individuals.   entrepreneur Instagram Congratulations, @realDonaldTrump @potus!We are ready and hope to build constructive and positive relationships between our counties! pic.twitter.com/pchk038h7h @realDonaldTrump @potus pic.twitter.com/pchk038h7h  Alferova Yulya (@AlferovaYulyaE) January 21, 2017 January 21, 2017 Alferova, who earned brief Internet notoriety in 2015 after posting a picture of her cat eating caviar, met Trump in November 2013 when he held his Miss Universe beauty pageant in Moscow. She wrote that the image was taken exactly three years prior to Trump's election win, on 9 November 2013, joking in Russian, "Coincidence? I do not think so." caviar Alferova was described in a 20 January 2017 Daily Beast story as an avid Trump admirer who read his books and emulated his famed career as a real estate mogul and celebrity. At one point she worked for the Crocus Group, a real estate firm owned by Trump's friends, the father-and-son team Aras and Emin Agalarov. The Daily Beast reported: story owned In 2013, Trumps longtime friends and interlocutors on business matters in Russia, the billionaire Aras Agalarov and his son Emin, the president and vice president of the Crocus Group real-estate company, asked the then-26-year-old Alferova, a quick-thinking Moscow entrepreneur, to help organize Trumps Miss Universe contest. If three years ago Alferovas job was to make sure that beautiful images of the event appeared on social media, today, as Trump is inaugurated as the next president of the United States, Alferova sees her mission as advocating for him. ... Trump had long been Alferovas business idol. She read his books, his life story, and modeled herself after him, working in commercial real estate for Crocus Group, developing social-media pages for Russian governors and regional officials, organizing federal and regional events. That day in November, Trump teamed up with Alferova, as if they were old friends. We talked as if we were equals, and I felt certain we were very much alike, she said. Trump invited her to have lunch togetherAlferova pulled up one more picture to demonstrate that there were just a few men and her waiting for lunch at the Crocus restaurant that day. When she mentioned she was interested in the real-estate business, Trump pulled out his business card and encouraged her to call him when she was in New York. Regardless of whether you think Alferova and Veselnitskaya look alike, they do share a connection -- a representative of Emin Agalarov, Alferova's former boss, was present was at the now-infamous 9 June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York City between Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., and Veselnitskaya, along with former campaign manager Paul Manafort and son-in-law Jared Kushner. between The meeting was arranged by Rob Goldstone, a former British tabloid writer-turned-publicist for Emin Agalarov (who is also a pop singer and featured the current U.S. president in a 2013 music video). Goldstone told Trump Jr. that the Russian government wanted to help his father win the election and that Veselnitskaya would provide deleterious information about Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. has said no useful information was provided.  music video told government has said The revelation about the meeting occurred amid an FBI investigation into whether members of the president's campaign colluded with the Russian government's meddling in the 2016 election. investigation Li, David K."This Russian Cat Eats Caviar While You Dont."
New York Post.12 March 2015. Nemtsova, Anna. "She Met Donald Trump at the Moscow Ritz (Not That Way!)"
The Daily Beast.20 January 2017. Twohey, Megan, and Eder, Steve."How a Pageant Led to a Trump Sons Meeting With a Russian Lawyer."
The New York Times.10 July 2017. Crowley, Michael."When Donald Trump Brought Miss Universe to Moscow."
Politico.15 May 2016. Ruiz, Rebecca R., and Landler, Mark."Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation."
The New York Times.17 May 2017.