Debit Card Abuse
Claim:   Debit cards issued to Hurricane Katrina evacuees have been used to purchase luxury or entertainment items. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] Yesterday, I was shopping for my mother in Dillard's at Lakeline Mall in Austin, TX. I admired a suit, but it was too expensive for me to purchase. You can imagine my shock when I witness the suit being purchased by a Katrina "refugee" using the government-issued debit card!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought certainly there must be controls on these debit cards that would preclude recipients from using the money to purchase items other taxpayers cannot afford, but I was mistaken. I heard the sales clerk call the Dillard's business office and confirm that the "American Red Cross Debit Card" could be used for the woman's purchase. After the transaction was completed, I asked the sales clerk to confirm this and she did. Now, when these debit cards that we the taxpayers provided are used up, what will happen? Will you give them even more of our money to purchase items the taxpayers cannot afford? I already know the answer. Based on the social welfare system that exists in our country, you will just give them more money. This system does not pass the "is this right?" test. You have hard-working, tax-paying citizens who worry every month whether they'll make it financially. And, you take their earnings and "re-distribute" it to others who do not work but wear better clothes, drive newer cars and have manicures, cell phones, and designer handbags. Yea, if you'd just send me one of those debit cards, I could buy my mother that nice suit. I have copied everyone in my address book. I am asking them to send this to everyone in their address books. This is the reality of our social welfare system. It must stop. Suzzette Chapman223 W. Mockingbird LaneHarker Heights, Texas 76548 Origins:  Through its disaster management agency FEMA, the federal government issued more than 10,000 debit cards to Hurricane Katrina refugees in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Each card carried a monetary value of $2,000. While the only overtly stated restrictions on their use prohibited the purchase of alcohol, tobacco or firearms, recipients were required to sign an agreement promising to use the cards only for disaster recovery purposes; that is, expenses related to the process of rebuilding their lives.  On 11 September 2005, just three days after its start, the debit card program was discontinued after refugees expressed frustration with the process. FEMA has since reverted to its traditional mode of directly depositing cash into the bank accounts of those being  assisted. While the intent of the novel program was to quickly thrust money into the hands of those left homeless by Hurricane Katrina and in need of ready cash with which to meet living expenses, not everyone who received debit cards kept their purchases in line with the spirit of the program's purpose. At least some of the cards were used to buy luxury or entertainment items.  One of the first news outlets to report on abuse of these financial instruments was the New York Daily News, who broke the story that two of the cards had been used in Atlanta to buy $800 Louis Vuitton handbags. (That claim has been substantiated by MSNBC's Abrams Report; the store confirmed to them that it happened.)  Others have been spotted in adult entertainment venues  according to a report by KPRC Channel 2 in Houston, the wife of a strip club manager in that city said her husband has seen patrons from Louisiana offering FEMA and Red Cross debit cards. A manager at Caligula XXI Gentlemen's Club told KPRC that he has seen at least one card used at his club. "Abby," a bartender at Baby Dolls, another strip club in Houston, said customers are paying for drinks with what may be FEMA or Red Cross debit cards. Syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz says FEMA debit cards were also used to pay for breast implants. (That assertion stands as unconfirmed at the moment.) We have ourselves received numerous e-mails from folks who claim they or someone they know saw the cards used to purchase expensive suits, diamond earrings, $300 handbags, and large plasma screen televisions. While we can't confirm any of those specifically, we do know the Houston Police Department formed a task force to investigate abuse of the FEMA-issued debit cards.   Neal Boortz How many of the cards have been misused is unknown at this point, but Lt. Craig Williams of the Houston Police Department Fraud Task Force says a majority of people are using the money the way it was intended. While the FEMA-issued card program has been brought to an end, the American Red Cross continues to give out debit cards, called Client Assistance Cards. Like FEMA's program, each disaster victim must agree to use the cards for emergency needs, such as food, housing, and clothing. Those too have been abused; for example, Red Cross records show one was used for entertainment items at a Best Buy (a computers, stereos, TVs, and other electronics store) in Kentucky for more than $1,000. It's likely some of the abuse was the doing of scam artists who fleeced evacuees of the cards issued them. Some Katrina evacuees were told by unscrupulous merchants they had to use the full value encoded into their cards in one shot or lose it  these merchants would then offer to buy the unused portion for cash at a reduced rate. Others were approached by individuals claiming to be FEMA representatives who demanded they hand their cards over to them, saying the cards had to be returned.  We can't answer the larger question in the back of everyone's minds  have most evacuees used the cash and resources handed them wisely and well, with the abuse limited to a mere handful of refugees, or has the exploitation of people's goodwill been widespread, with the "wisely and well" crowd in the distinct minority? It's a troubling question to have to go unanswered, because Americans are not going to open their wallets to the Red Cross nearly as readily or be as supportive of FEMA if they've strong reason to suspect the money they drained from their households to assist victims of disasters (either as direct donations or through their taxes) is going for big-ticket items they themselves can't afford for their own families or is being tucked into someone's G-string. Barbara "bared necessities" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 October 2005    Sources:   Abrams, Dan.  "The Abrams Report."   MSNBC.  16 September 2005  (p. A1).    Christian, Carol.  "Guard Debit Cards Carefully, Say Officials."   Houston Chronicle.  10 September 2005.    Ramstack, Tom.  "Gulf Coast Residents Told to Use Aid for Recovery Only."   The Washington Times.  30 September 2005  (p. A1).    Seltzer, Robert.  "Stripped of Joy, Katrina Evacuees Find Comfort in Bare Necessities."   San Antonio Express-News.  25 September 2005  (p. H1).    Widdicombe, Ben.  "Gatecrasher: Retailers Take a Swipe at Katrina Card Use."   [New York] Daily News.  18 September 2005  (Gossip, p. 22).    Widdicombe, Ben.  "Gatecrasher: Lavish Tastes of Card-Carrying Lowlifes."   [New York] Daily News.  10 September 2005  (Gossip, p. 20).    Yen, Hope.  "U.S. Emergency Agency Says it Will End Debit Card Plan for Evacuees."   Associated Press.  9 September 2005.
Claim:  Walt Disney's will specified that a substantial bequest go to the first man to become pregnant or bear a child. Status:  False. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2004] I've actually heard this quite a few times but, I was told that Walt Disney had a section of his will that the first MAN to give birth to a baby would a piece of his estate (I've heard they would get Disney World, I've also heard that they would get $10 million).   [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] One day at lunch, we some how got on the subject of Walt Disney, and someone brought up a new thing I had never heard before, he said "It says in Walt Disney's will that the entire Disney corporation goes to the first male to get pregnant." Origins:  The eccentric wealthy person who leaves behind a will giving a substantial fortune to the person who accomplishes some difficult feat (or meets some unusual qualification) is a common figure in entertainment and legend.  Such figures are generally found more often in fiction than in fact, although real-life instances are not hard to find.  (One of the most notable examples is the case of Charles Vance Millar, a Toronto lawyer whose will included a number of capricious bequests, including one that touched off years of legal wrangling in the 1930s in what came to be known as "The Great Stork Derby.") Millar One of the more odd (and puzzling) recent examples of this genre is the claim that Walt Disney's will specified cash or assets worth many millions of dollars be given to the first man to become pregnant or give birth to a child.  Although the reason why this particular claim has become attached to the name of Walt Disney may be something of a mystery, determining that it is false is a fairly simple matter, for a number of reasons: Walt Disney was, for the most part, a man whose sensibilities reflected turn-of-the-century, conservative Midwestern values.  He didn't truck in the outrageous or bizarre, and the thought of a man's bearing children is something he likely would have found disturbing and repulsive, not something he would have sought to encourage or reward with the bestowment of a considerable fortune.  Most  versions of this claim have Walt supposedly bequeathing something he could not give away, such as a sum of money exceeding the value of his portion of his estate, or corporate assets belonging to publicly held companies (e.g., Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Walt Disney Productions).  Although Walt Disney held a personal financial stake in a few Disneyland attractions (such as the railroad and the monorail) and made a good deal of money licensing the use of his name to Walt Disney Productions, he owned neither the theme park nor the company that bore his name and therefore could not direct that either be "given" to anyone.  (At the time of his death, Walt and his wife Lillian jointly owned stock amounting to about 14% of Walt Disney Productions.)  Walt Disney's will of March 1966, which was in effect when he passed away in December of that year, contained no provisions for rewarding pregnant men (or any other unusual disbursements).  Disney left 45% of his estate to his wife and daughters, another 45% to the Disney Foundation in a charitable trust (most of which was dedicated to CalArts), and the remaining 10% in a trust to be divided among his sister, nieces, and nephews. will CalArts Although some medical researchers have expressed the belief that a man might someday be able to carry a pregnancy to term (even if it isn't necessarily a good idea), and a renowned piece of Internet "performance art" presented the idea that a male pregnancy had already been accomplished, for now the subject still remains one of speculation rather than fact. pregnancy performance art Last updated:  11 March 2008     Sources:   Gabler, Neal.  Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination.   New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.   ISBN 0-679-43822-X   (pp. 629-630). Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination    Barrier, Michael.  The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney.   Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. ISBN 0-520-24117-7  (p. 323). The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney On Nov. 26, Taters Gonna Tate published an article positing that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had arrested the mayor of Los Angeles.  article "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City." Weve all been wondering when this would happen and why wasnt this done from the start. But we shouldnt dwell. Justice is finally being done. Josiah Barron, the celebrated mayor of Los Angeles County, was led away from his office in handcuffs today by ICE agents and charged with harboring fugitives from the law with his decision to provide undocumented immigrants with refuge under his Sanctuary City designation. The arrest followed Barrons order to the citys police to not cooperate with ICE by reporting illegal aliens in their custody. ICE demanded the criminals be handed over but they were denied.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: describes "Tatersgonnatate.com is a subsidiary of the Americas Last Line of Defense network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery ... Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this sites pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical." The fake story was widely shared in late December after America's Last Line of Defense (ALLOD) re-promoted it on Facebook on Dec. 24. Although the article bore disclaimers that labelled it "satire," many readers mistook it for serious news, as demonstrated by a series of earnest comments on the ALLOD Facebook page:   For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire and humor. why TatersGonnaTate.com. "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City."
 26 November 2019. In January and February 2021, Snopes readers asked us to examine reports that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had invested as much as $1 million in the electric vehicle company Tesla, prompting concerns over a potential conflict of interest on her part. On Jan. 25, Business Insider published an article with the headline "Nancy Pelosi Has Plowed Up to $1 Million Into Bullish Bets on Tesla Stock." The article reported that: Business Insider "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has placed up to $1 million worth of bullish bets on Tesla stock, she revealed in a financial disclosure form last week. Pelosi bought 25 call options on Tesla stock with a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of March 18, 2022." Similar articles were published by the San Francisco Chronicle, Jalopnik, Benzinga, and Refinery29. Chronicle Jalopnik Benzinga Refinery29 On Facebook, users promoted a meme that claimed Pelosi had invested in Tesla on Jan. 24, 2021, just one day before President Joe Biden announced his intention to replace the federal government's fleet with electric vehicles  suggesting she had advance knowledge of Biden's plan and acted with that in mind. promoted meme announced   Pelosi did not personally invest in Tesla, so reports and social media posts to that effect were inaccurate in that respect. However, her husband Paul did, leaving open ethical considerations similar to those that would have arisen if the stock options had been purchased in her name. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Mixture" as to the claim that the House Speaker invested up to $1 million in Tesla. The Facebook meme highlighted above was doubly inaccurate, because it falsely stated not only that Pelosi herself had conducted the Tesla transaction, but that it took place just one day before Biden made his electric vehicle announcement, and that the amount in question was $1.25 million. In fact, Paul Pelosi bought the Tesla options on Dec. 22, 2020  more than a month before Biden's announcement  and the amount in question was between $500,000 and $1 million. The details of Paul Pelosi's investments were contained in Speaker Pelosi's periodic transaction report, filed on Jan. 21, 2021. Under federal law and the Code of Federal Regulations, public officials (including members of Congress) are required to submit a report every time they, their spouse, or their dependent children conduct any "purchase, sale, or exchange of stocks, bonds, commodity futures, and other forms of securities," where the amount of the transaction is greater than $1,000. The official is required to file the report within 30 days of becoming aware of it. periodic transaction report federal law Code of Federal Regulations Officials are not required to report the exact amount of the investment or purchase, but rather they must specify a "valuation category," divided into various bands including $15,000 to $50,000; $250,000 to $500,000; $500,000 to $1 million; $5 million to $25 million, among others. Paul Pelosi's investment in Tesla amounted to somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million, and was described as "25 call options with a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of 3/18/22." The "SP" under the "Owner" column makes it clear that the transaction was conducted not by the congresswoman herself, but by her spouse: described   The federal Office of Government Ethics describes a "call option" as follows: describes A call option is a contract that provides the buyer the right to purchase a security... The buyer has the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option at a specified price (i.e., the strike price) until the contracts expiration date. Some put and call options may be purchased on the open market. As an alternative to exercising put and call options, investors can resell these options on the open market before their expiration. put The Jan. 21 transaction report states that Paul Pelosi also bought call options in Disney and Apple, and purchased shares in AllianceBernstein, an investment management firm. Concerns around Paul Pelosi's investment in Tesla are based on the fact that Speaker Pelosi is likely to play a prominent role in congressional negotiations over clean energy policy, in general, over the course of the Biden administration, and that, in particular, her family could stand to gain financially if Biden's plan to move the entire federal fleet to electric vehicles sees the value of Tesla stock appreciate significantly. Snopes asked a spokesperson for Speaker Pelosi for her response to such concerns over the potential appearance of a conflict of interest on her part. We also asked whether she or her husband were aware of Biden's intention to transition the federal fleet to electric vehicles at the time the investment was made, and whether Paul Pelosi now intended to sell his Tesla options, in light of the president's electric vehicle announcement, in order to minimize any appearance of a conflict of interest. We did not receive a response to those questions in time for publication, but we will update this story if we hear back. August 2016 saw the circulation of rumors holding that the Ford Motor Company had donated a large sum of money (typically between one and 100 million dollars) directly to the Black Lives Matter movement: rumors TIME FOR BOYCOTT! Ford Just Gave $100 MILLION To THIS Radical Hate Group Ford used to be one of the most highly-respected and longest-running companies in the United States. Now, the automaker is not only shipping a huge portion of its jobs overseas, it is giving away an enormous sum of money to a separatist and racist hate group. Ford just donated $100 million dollars to Black Lives Matter. A (since removed) blog post published by Allen B. West's blog on 11 August 2016 called for a boycott of the automaker over the issue: boycott Ford is investing in the Black-Led Movement Fund in partnership with Borealis Philanthropy Movement Strategy Center, and Benedict Consulting. Well, if you were ever looking for a reason not to buy a Ford vehicle or to trade one in you already have, this seems to be just as good as any. Looks like another American icon just caved to the liberal agenda. We see how well that worked out for Target Hopefully enough people will express displeasure over this to prompt Ford to stop playing politics and get back to making cars. <!--However, the claim was resurrected by the unreliable American News on 24 September 2016 (during then-current high-profile Black Lives Matter protests), prompting a new wave of consumers threatening to boycott Ford over Black Lives Matter on Ford Motor Company's Facebook page: claim then-current Black Lives Matter page The claims appeared to stem from an 11 August 2016 article in Fortune, which was admittedly ambiguous in its reporting with respect to the Ford Foundation versus the Ford Motor Company: article More than 50 organizations have already registered their support [for the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL)], but one, in particular, stands out. The Ford Foundation added their voice to the growing chorus of supporters, in the strongest possible terms. But the [Ford Foundation] is also planning on studying and underwriting what it calls a new and dynamic form of social justice leadership and infrastructure, by investing in the Black-Led Movement Fund, (BLMF) a pooled donor fund designed to support the work of the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), and led by Borealis Philanthropy. In the first paragraph above, Fortune erroneously linked the word "Ford" in "Ford Foundation" to the web site of the Ford Motor Company:   The origins of the rumor lay with a 19 July 2016 announcement from the Ford Foundation titled "Why black lives matter to philanthropy" explaining why that foundation had "made six-year investments in the organizations and networks that compose the Movement for Black Lives": announcement We are living in anxious, often frightening times. Earlier this month, the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling sparked a new round of public protest against the toxic blend of racism, hypermasculinity, and state violence that has taken the lives of too many black men and women and people of color in the US. At one protest in Dallas, a lone gunman killed five police officersLorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael J. Smith, Brent Thompson, and Patrick Zamarripa. Weve seen reductive attempts to frame the murders in Dallas as a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, but that obscures the larger democratic principles at play: The officers died while protecting the right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and are inexorably linked to Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. These events  added to so many others, including the fatal shootings of three police officers in Baton Rouge on Sunday morning  have the potential to either deepen empathy and understanding among Americans or divide us even more sharply along lines of race, ethnicity, and gender. Thats why now is the time to stand by and amplify movements rooted in love, compassion, and dignity for all people. Now is the time to call for an end to state violence directed at communities of color. And now is the time to advocate for investment in public services  including but not limited to police reform  together with education, health, and employment in communities and for people that have historically had less opportunity and access to all those things.These are the reasons we support the Movement for Black Lives. However, the flaw in claiming that the Ford Motor Company donated millions of dollars to the Black Lives Matter movement is two-fold. First, although the philanthropic Ford Foundation is so named because it was created and originally funded by automobile icon Henry Ford (along with his son Edsel) and because the foundation was a large holder of Ford stock, those associations ended many years ago. No member of the Ford family or Ford Motor Company management sits on the Ford Foundation Board of Trustees, and the Ford Foundation began selling off its Ford Motor Company stock in the mid-1950's (a process that was completed in 1974). The completely separate Ford Motor Company Fund and Community Services is the current philanthropic arm of the Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company Fund and Community Services Second, although they may have common goals, the Black Lives Matter movement and the Movement for Black Lives are not the same thing. The latter is not a single group or movement, but rather "a coalition of over 50 black-led organizations": Movement for Black Lives latter Black humanity and dignity requires black political will and power. In response to the sustained and increasingly visible violence against Black communities in the U.S. and globally, a collective of more than 50 organizations representing thousands of Black people from across the country have come together with renewed energy and purpose to articulate a common vision and agenda. We are a collective that centers and is rooted in Black communities, but we recognize we have a shared struggle with all oppressed people; collective liberation will be a product of all of our work. Some of the blog posts responsible for the spread of the rumor that the Ford Motor Company had given millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter were later edited to note that the Ford Foundation and Ford Motor Company had long since parted ways, but by then the claim had already been loosed into the wilds of social media, and the important distinction between the two entities was lost as the rumor traveled from blog to blog.    McGirt, Ellen.  "Who Is Funding Black Lives Matter."
  Fortune.  8 August 2016. Yasui, Luna and Brook Kelly-Green.  "Why Black Lives Matter to Philanthropy."
  Ford Foundation Equals Change Blog.  19 July 2016. Ford Foundation.  "A Legacy of Social Justice."
  (Undated.) Ford Foundation.  "History."
  (Undated.) Ford Motor Company.  "The Ford Motor Company Fund and Community Services."
  (Undated.) Funding Universe.  "The Ford Foundation History."
  (Undated.) Borealis Philanthropy.  "Black-Led Movement Fund."
  (Undated.) Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey.  Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion.  The name of Southwest Airlines, a major U.S. airline which is also the world's largest low-cost carrier, has frequently been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years.  In February 2016, social media users encountered posts that appeared to be from Southwest Airlines, offering to give away four tickets to Las Vegas and $5,000 spending money to Facebook users who shared and liked a page.  The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel  "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print.  The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by Southwest Airlines) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:  Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware.    In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking Southwest Airlines has responded to such scams by issuing messages on Twitter that read: "Hey folks! There is a scam being passed around on Facebook about a free ticket offer from SWA. Please don't click or share the links!" As well, Southwest spokesperson Christi McNeill has said of these attempts to defraud that "We are aware of the scam for free tickets being spread across Facebook. This offer is in no way affiliated with Southwest Airlines and we are working with Facebook to get it removed." Claim:  Photographs show the proceeds from drug sales found during a raid of Mexican drug dealers' residence.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2007] $207 Million seized in Mexico ... wonder what they did with all of it! No wonder we aren't winning the war on drugs. This is unbelievable.  RAID ON DRUG DEALERS HOUSE                   Origins:  The photographs displayed above accompanied a March 2007 press release issued by the PGR (Mexico's office of La Procuradura General de la Repblica, or judge advocate general) announcing a successful drug raid on a Mexico City home.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), working in conjunction with Mexican police, made what the DEA described as the "largest drug-cash seizure in history" when they confiscated a total of $205.6 million in U.S. currency, along with other cash, vehicles, and weapons, from a residence used by methamphetamine producers: PGR The money found hidden inside walls, suitcases and closets in one of Mexico City's wealthiest neighborhoods came from the profits of methamphetamines sold in the United States, [DEA chief Karen Tandy]  said. Mexican law enforcement and the DEA worked for a year on the operation, she said. Mexican federal agents also seized eight luxury vehicles,  seven weapons and a pill-making machine during the raid in Lomas de Chapultepec, a neighborhood of walled compounds that is home to ambassadors and business magnates. Seven people were arrested and were ordered Monday to be held for three months while the investigation continues. In addition to the dollars, officials found 200,000 euros and 157,500 pesos. Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said the money was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. Mora said the ring had been operating since 2004 and was run by a native of China who had gained Mexican citizenship. The alleged gang leader is in hiding, possibly outside of the country, Medina Mora said. The operation should reduce the supply of methamphetamine to the United States, where Mexican drug gangs control at least 80 percent of the market, Tandy said. The U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Antonio O. Garza, issued a statement about the raid which was published on the embassy's web site (and included the photographs reproduced here): statement photographs Mexico City, March 20, 2007  With the largest single drug cash seizure by law enforcement officials in history, major narco-traffickers are now US $205 million poorer. This unprecedented seizure of drug money by Mexican law enforcement officials in Mexico City last week also led to the arrest of several important narco-traffickers.  The seizure and arrests underscore our two countries' deep commitment to fighting the drug kingpins who bring corruption and violence to communities on both sides of the border. President Calderons administration has demonstrated firm resolve in fighting the criminals who undermine our societies and terrorize our citizens.  Acting on information supplied in part by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Mexican law enforcement officers on March 15th seized these funds from the Mexico City home of an individual connected to the UNIMED pharmaceutical corporation of Hong Kong, China. Seven individuals have been arrested so far and authorities are looking for more suspects.  U.S. authorities believe UNIMED is connected with attempts, in December 2006 and February 2007, to smuggle large amounts of the toxic chemicals used to produce methamphetamine through ports in Colima and Michoacan.  I am convinced that continued close cooperation between our law enforcement agencies will lead to more arrests and further successes in our common fight against narco-traffickers. In July 2007, Chinese-Mexican businessman Zhenli Ye Gon, who was tied to the March 2007 seizure of drug cash shown in the photographs above, was arrested in Rockville, Maryland: Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora called the arrest "magnificent news" and said Mexican officials had 60 days to file their legal arguments for Ye Gon's extradition. The Chinese-Mexican fugitive is wanted on organized crime, drug trafficking and weapons charges. DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney said Ye Gon was arrested on drug smuggling and money laundering charges, adding that he was tracked down by agents and did not turn himself in. Medina Mora said the cash seized at Ye Gon's home was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. He said the ring had been operating since 2004, illegally importing the substance and selling it to a drug cartel that mixed it into the crystal form and imported into the United States. Last updated:  14 February 2014    Grillo, Ioan.   "Alleged Drug Trafficker Arrested in Maryland."   Associated Press.  24 July 2007. In his Democratic convention address, former President Bill Clinton took a shot at President Donald Trumps economic record during the coronavirus pandemic, saying the 45th president has botched his handling of the twin health and economic crises. Donald Trump says were leading the world, Clinton said. Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple. Using the most clear-cut multi-nation comparison  comparing January to June 2020  Clinton is right. But its worth noting some differences in how countries address unemployment. We turned to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank whose members are advanced industrialized countries. The group collects economic statistics for all its members, including unemployment rates. We chose 20 countries for which data was available, including most of the countries in western Europe, plus Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. For consistencys sake, we compared January to June because only two of the countries reported data for July. As the following chart shows, the United States was among the few countries to show a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate between January and June. The U.S. is the peach-colored line with the steep climb; you can see each country highlighted if you hover over the list of countries at the bottom. The United States saw its unemployment rate increase from 3.6% to 11.1%. That works out to a little under 3.1 times higher in June than January. No other country saw such a big increase. The only other nation that saw its unemployment rate more than double over that period was Canada, which saw its rate increase 2.2 times. Canada actually had a higher unemployment rate in June than the U.S. did, at 12.3%, but the scale of Canadas increase was more modest than the United States because Canada had a higher rate to start, at 5.5%. Using U.S. data for February instead of January doesnt change the picture much. The U.S. unemployment rate in February was 3.5%, making the increase through June about 3.2 times. There are a couple asterisks to Clintons statement. If you compare January to July, a month for which data isnt available for most of the OECD nations, the increase in the United States was still substantial, but just short of three times higher. The unemployment rate rose from 3.6% in January to 10.2% in July, meaning an increase of 2.8 times. Its also worth noting that the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen for three straight months, amid a zigzagging reopening and a volatile economy. So the unemployment rate is likely to bounce around a bit before it settles down. Finally, the OECD itselfnotessome differences across countries. Some nations have used more aggressive efforts than the United States to subsidize workers to remain on payrolls. And some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not count temporarily laid-off workers as unemployed, while the United States does count such workers as unemployed. Clinton said the United States is the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple since the coronavirus pandemic began. Thats accurate for the broadest comparison  a 20-nation selection of OECD nations between January 2020 and June 2020. The rate in the U.S. was 3.1 times higher in June than in January. Only Canada came close, with the unemployment rate 2.2 times higher over that period. However, extending the U.S. data to July showed that the increase fell slightly below three times, and there are some complications in making cross-country comparisons. We rate the statement Mostly True. UPDATE, Aug. 20:This article has been updated with additional context about the complications of making cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates. The rating remains the same. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 26, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a message on Twitter stating that we "must have final [vote] total" of the presidential election on Nov. 3, 2020. This tweet was subsequently flagged by Twitter for spreading content that could damage the integrity of the country's elections:  message This is not the first time that Trump has called for the winner of the election to be declared on Nov. 3. On Oct. 27, Trump said:  said "It would be very very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November 3rd, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate and I don't believe that that's by our laws. I don't believe that. So we'll see what happens." The laws of the United States do not say that the winner of a presidential election must be declared or certified on the same night as the election. In fact, the election process in the United States extends for several weeks after the final votes are cast on Nov. 3.  Ellen Weintraub, the commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, responded to the president's comments on Twitter, writing: writing An election is not a reality show with a big reveal at the end. All we get on Election Night are projections from TV networks. We *never* have official results on Election Night. Counting ballots  all of 'em  is the appropriate, proper, and very legal way to determine who won. While Americans may be used to seeing newscasters call the results of a presidential election on election night, states don't typically certify their election results for several days (and in some cases weeks) after the election. When a newscaster "calls" a race on election night, this is actually a "projection"  an estimate based on the amount of votes cast so far  and not a legally sanctioned election result. projection Here's an excerpt from an article published by Pew Research concerning American's skewed expectations for election night: Pew Research On Nov. 3, millions of Americans will trek to their local polling places to cast their ballots for the next president. That evening, after the polls close, theyll settle down in front of their televisions to watch the returns roll in from across the country. Sometime that night or early the next morning, the networks and wire services will call the race, and Americans will know whether President Donald Trump has won a second term or been ousted by former Vice President Joe Biden. Just about every statement in the previous paragraph is false, misleading or at best lacking important context. Over the years, Americans have gotten used to their election nights coming off like a well-produced game show, with the big reveal coming before bedtime (a few exceptions like the 2000 election notwithstanding). In truth, theyve never been quite as simple or straightforward as they appeared. And this year, which has already upended so much of what Americans took for granted, seems poised to expose some of the wheezy 18th- and 19th-century mechanisms that still shape the way a president is elected in the 21st century. While Nov. 3 marks the end of voting, it is far from the end of the election process. In the following days and weeks (it varies by states), all of the ballots will be counted and certified. This year, the process might take an especially long time due to an expected increase in voter turnout, as well as a surge in mail-in ballots due to the COVID-19 pandemic. expected increase in voter turnout, mail-in ballots Many states continue to receive and count mail-in ballots for several days after election day as long as those ballots were postmarked on or prior to Nov. 3. In Mississippi, for instance, absentee ballots will be accepted "five business days after Election Day if postmarked on or before Election Day." In Illinois, ballots that were postmarked on or before election day will be counted as long as they arrive within 14 days. In other words, we won't know the official total vote count on Nov. 3 because some states won't even be finished receiving ballots by this date.  receive and count mail-in ballots for several days And counting ballots is only part of the process.  The President of the United States is not elected by the popular vote. Rather, once each state counts and certifies all of its votes, governors prepare a "Certificate of Ascertainment" that lists the state's Electoral College electors. These electors cast their votes for president, which are then counted and certified by Congress.  not elected by the popular vote The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), an independent government agency tasked with preserving historical records, is responsible for transmitting the votes of the Electoral College to Congress. In NARA's guide to the 2020 election, they outline a timeline that stretches from June (when preparations begin) to Nov. 3 (when the election takes place) to mid-November (when governors prepare a "Certificate of Ascertainment" listing the state's electors) to Dec. 14 (when members of the Electoral College cast their votes) to Jan. 6 (when the vote is counted in Congress) to Jan. 20 (when a president is inaugurated). Review NARA's full timeline in this document. document In short, tallying the vote this year is expected to take longer than usual due to increased voter turnout and a surge in mail-in ballots. While it is possible that one candidate will win enough votes on election night that newscasters will be able to say with reasonable certainty who will win the election, these news reports are not the official legal method in which a presidential election is certified. States will spend days (or weeks) counting ballots in the days after the election, governors will then certify those results and list their electors, members of the electoral college will then cast their votes, and then Congress will certify those results.  Berman, Russell.  "The November Surprise."
  The Atlantic.  7 October 2020. CNN.  "How Does CNN Make Election Projections?."
  2008. Desilver, Drew.  "Mail-in Voting Became Much More Common in 2020 Primaries as COVID-19 Spread."
  Pew Research Center.  13 October 2020. Desilver, Drew.  "Election Night Marks the End of One Phase of Campaign 2020  and The Start of Another."
  Pew Research Center.  22 October 2020. United States House of Representatives.  "Electoral College Fast Facts."
  Retrieved 27 October 2020. Robertson, Helena, Kirk, Ashley, and Hulley-Jones, Frank.  "Electoral College Explained: How Biden Faces an Uphill Battle in the US Election."
  The Guardian.  27 October 2020. On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS." reported response     As we show below, the tweet is a largely accurate recounting of history, though the assertion that the bank funded ISIS overstates what is publicly known at this time. In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions: reported Manfred Pohl, head of Deutsche Banks historical institute, said newly uncovered documents showed the bank had links with firms that built the camp in Poland. It also had credit links to one company that made incineration units and funded another whose subsidiary made the Zyklon-B gas used in the camp. On examination of credit records, we determined that branches . . . had credit links to local companies which were active at the construction site . . . in Auschwitz, Pohl said at a media briefing in Frankfurt. Pohl told reporters that the existence of these loans would have been known to high-ranking managers of the bank. "It is clear that this was known as high up at the main office in Katowice. It is not certain whether it was known in Berlin," Pohl said, though he added these loans would have had to be approved in Berlin to go ahead. Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion  so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank: reported Reuters Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the presidents umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials. According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known. Reuters According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank." 2019 report Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators." according In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein. apologized In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations. made In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients  including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity. reported In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration  a project named the FinCEN files  led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory. FinCEN files story The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control." said While suggestive of an at least unwitting role for Deutsche Bank in ISIS related finances, these reports are not strong enough evidence to support the statement that Deutsche Bank "funds" ISIS. Because there is some truth to the ISIS claim, and because the other assertions are true, we rank the overall claim made in the viral tweet as "true."