Did Zelensky Say Trump 'Did Nothing Wrong' In Relation to Ukraine?
In December 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump, beset by a mounting, Democrat-led impeachment process, tried to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing in relation to his July 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Trump's broader actions and policies toward Ukraine. That phone call has been the focus of intense scrutiny, amid allegations that Trump used U.S. aid to Ukraine (a U.S. ally) as leverage in attempting to force Zelensky to launch an investigation into former U.S. Vice President and leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and Biden's son, Hunter. On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted: tweeted "Breaking News: The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls. If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!"   We asked the White House to explain what the president was referring to and how those purported remarks amounted to an announcement by Zelensky that Trump had "done nothing wrong." We did not receive a response of any kind. However, Trump appeared to be alluding to a major interview Zelensky gave to four international news outlets: TIME in the U.S., Le Monde in France, Der Spiegel in Germany and Gazeta Wyborcza in Poland. Those news organizations published their respective transcripts of the interview on or around Dec. 2, with the exception of Der Spiegel, which had not yet released its own transcript at the time this fact check was published.  Zelensky answered one question that was directly and specifically relevant to his July 2019 phone call with Trump. The following is a breakdown of how three of the four outlets reported that section of the interview. TIME TIME Q: When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trumps decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo? Zelensky: Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. Thats not my thing...I dont want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. Were at war. If youre our strategic partner, then you cant go blocking anything for us. I think thats just about fairness. Its not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying. Le Monde Le Monde Q: Lors de cette conversation tlphonique, quand avez-vous senti le lien entre laide militaire amricaine et la demande denqute formule par M. Trump sur Hunter Biden, le fils de son rival dmocrate Joe Biden pour llection de 2020 ? Zelensky: Nous navons pas parl dun change du genre  Je te donne ci et tu me donnes a . Ce type de conversation, je lai eu avec le prsident russe lorsque nous avons chang les prisonniers. Et je peux lavoir avec lEurope pour quils nous disent :  Remplissez telle ou telle condition pour rejoindre lUnion europenne [UE].  LUkraine se trouve en Europe et peut faire partie de lUE. Et nous le voulons. L je comprendrais quil puisse y avoir un donnant-donnant... (Translated) Q: During that phone conversation, at what point did you sense the connection between American military aid and Mr. Trump's request for an inquiry into Hunter Biden, the son of his Democrat rival in the 2020 election, Joe Biden? Zelensky: We didn't talk about an exchange in terms of "You give my this and I give you that." I did have that type of conversation with the Russian president, when we conducted a prisoner exchange. And I could have [that type of conversation] with Europe if they say to us "Satisfy this or that condition in order to join the European Union." Ukraine is in Europe and could become part of the EU. And we want that. In that case I could understand having a give-and-take... Gazeta Wyborcza Gazeta Wyborcza Q: Jest wiele spekulacji na temat tego, kiedy pan zrozumia, e jest zwizek midzy amerykask wojenn pomoc i ledztwami, o ktre prosi Trump [w sprawie Huntera Bidena i firmy Burisma]? Zelensky: Ja nie rozmawiaem z Trumpem z pozycji "co za co". W taki sposb rozmawiaem z prezydentem Rosji  oddaj mi tych, a my oddamy tych [winiw]. Czego potrzebujemy od USA? Nie chcemy wyglda dzisiaj jak klient. Ale trzeba rozumie, e u nas toczy si wojna. Jeli jestemy strategicznymi partnerami, to nie mona nam czego blokowa. U nas byy posiedzenia z UE. Powiedziaem im otwarcie: zobaczcie, tak by nie moe, albo nas widzicie w UE, albo nie. My podkrelamy: Ukraina znajduje si w Europie i zakadamy, e moemy by czci UE, podzielamy te same wartoci. Tutaj wymiana co za co jest dla mnie zrozumia... (Translated) Q: There has been a lot of speculation about when you understood that there was a link between American aid and the investigations Trump was asking for [regarding Hunter Biden and Burisma]. Zelensky: I didn't talk to Trump in terms of "this for that." I did talk like that with Putin -- give them [prisoners] to me and I'll give them to you. What do we want from the U.S.? We don't want to look like a client. But you have to understand that we have a war zone going on here. If we're strategic partners, we can't block each other's business.  We had meetings with the EU. I told them explicitly: this is unacceptable. Either you see Ukraine as part of the EU or you don't. We emphasize: Ukraine is in Europe and we believe we can become part of the EU, we have the same core values. In that situation, a quid pro quo makes sense. Clearly, Zelensky did not say, word-for-word, that Trump had "done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and [the two men's] interactions or calls." However, Trump's tweet did not attribute that to Zelensky as a direct quotation, so it should not be evaluated as such. Rather, Trump was giving his own description or summary of what Zelensky had said. As we've seen, Zelensky did say that, in their July phone conversation, he and Trump did not discuss a quid pro quo agreement or arrangement in which Trump would release military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian authorities opening an investigation into the alleged (and unproven) activities of the Bidens in and with regard to Ukraine.  Without presenting supportive evidence, Trump and others have claimed that Joe Biden acted corruptly while he was vice president, because he pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire the country's top prosecutor in order to end an investigation into the owner of Burisma, a natural gas company whose board of directors included Biden's son, Hunter. However, former U.S. officials have rejected that theory, saying that Joe Biden pushed Ukraine to remove the prosecutor as part of a broader Obama administration drive against corruption in Ukraine. rejected The allegation that Trump used military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip, in exchange for an investigation that would prove damaging to one of his likely main rivals in the 2020 election, has so far undeniably been one of the principle allegations against the president. Therefore, when Zelensky said he and Trump did not discuss matters in terms of a "quid pro quo," he was undeniably exculpating Trump to a certain extent (whether or not Zelensky's description of the conversation actually measures up to what the White House call summary shows). As such, there is a measure of truth in Trump's claim that Zelensky said his American counterpart had done nothing wrong, but only as it relates specifically to that phone call.  call summary The allegations of wrongdoing against Trump extend beyond the contents of one particular phone call in July. For example, Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the EU, has testified before Congress that Trump directed a months-long campaign of lobbying and persuading Ukrainian authorities to investigate the Bidens, as well as discredited claims that Ukraine (rather than Russia) was responsible for online efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.  campaign According to Sondland, that broader policy involved Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, acting at the president's direction, as well as other administration officials, and involved Trump directing his officials to freeze U.S. military aid to Ukraine. In his December 2019 interview, Zelensky did not address those wider allegations about Trump's Ukraine policy  he spoke only about one particular phone call. Therefore, Trump was only partly accurate in summarizing and describing what Zelensky said as "President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls." Shuster, Simon. "'I Don't Trust Anyone at All.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks Out on Trump, Putin and a Divided Europe."
 TIME. 2 December 2019. Gatinois, Claire. "Volodymyr Zelensky: 'Nous Voulons un Vritable Cessez-le-Feu.'"
 Le Monde. 2 December 2019. Andrusieczko, Piotr. "Woodymyr Zeenski: Nie pjd na Donbas, zginyby setki tysicy ludzi."
 Gazeta Wyborcza. 2 December 2019. Riechmann, Deb. "Anatomy of the Phone Call Now Imperiling Trump's Presidency."
 The Associated Press. 12 October 2019. Levine, Mike. "Testimony and Texts: How the Trump-Ukraine Allegations Fit Together in a Timeline."
 ABC News. 20 November 2019.
Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 President Barack Obama is expected to take another stab at raising the minimum wage when he delivers his State of the Union speech this week. But Republicans appear ready to stymie that proposal once again. The topic came up Jan. 26, 2014, onFox News Sundayduring a discussion between host Chris Wallace and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Isn't it reasonable that somebody who's working full time, 40 hours a week, should be able to live above the poverty line? Wallace asked McConnell, referring to Obamas calls to hike the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Yeah. But of course, the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people, McConnell replied. We have a crisis in employment among young people right now. McConnell went on to say that he believes raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and we ought to be doing things that create more jobs. But what about McConnells characterization of minimum wage workers? Is it a workforce mostly made up of young folks? Well stick to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25, since thats the topic up for debate. As it stands,21 states and the District of Columbiahave set their minimum wage higher than the federal level. A spokesman for McConnell pointed us to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, Characterizations of Minimum Wage Workers, released in February of last year. Were familiar with it, having written a couple offact-checksrecentlyon the minimum wage. According to the report, of the 75 million people making hourly wages in 2012, about 1.6 million earned the minimum wage while another 2 million earned less than $7.25 an hour. (How does one earn less than the minimum wage? Certainexceptionsare carved out for vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability.) The underlying data in the report largely backs up McConnells claim. In fact, the report even says Minimum wage workers tend to be young. How young? Only 20 percent of individuals earning hourly wages are ages 16-24, but that demographic makes up half of all individuals earning at or below the minimum wage. About a quarter of those individuals are teenagers ages 16-19 and another 25 percent are 20 to 24 years old. Broadened to include 25-29 year olds, and nearly two-thirds of all workers making at or below the minimum wage are younger than 30. The older you get, the more likely youre making more than $7.25. But McConnell also described minimum wage jobs as entry-level. Thats a characterization with which some may take an issue. Entry-level jobs typically indicate positions that, while at the bottom of the totem pole, have potential for growth. Young adults take entry-level jobs at companies hoping to climb the career ladder. And while wages are lower, there is potential to see considerable salary increases and/or career advancement. A majority of minimum-wage jobs dont really fit that description. According to the report, two-thirds are part-time, and half of all minimum wage jobs are in the leisure or hospitality industry. This includes food service jobs like waiters and cooks, hotel employees or movie theater workers, among other jobs. While many of those jobs are traditionally held by young people, they dont typically lead to careers in those industries. The same can be said for retail jobs, which make up another 16 percent of all minimum wage-or-less positions. Our ruling McConnell said the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that indeed half of all workers making a minimum wage are 16 to 24, and another 20 percent are in their late 20s or early 30s. Thats a large chunk of the minimum wage workforce, though about 30 percent of people making the minimum wage are 35 and older. McConnell also goes a bit too far in calling these jobs entry-level. For most young people, these are part-time jobs in the food or retail businesses or similar industries with little hope for career advancement. We rate McConnells statement as Mostly True. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market. archiving services  new tweet  Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data. do not most U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama. record started Elkins, Kathleen."Only Half of Americans Have Access to a 401(k)  Heres How to Save for Retirement If You Dont."
CNBC.18 March 2019. Chang, Sue."Welcome To the Longest Bull Market in Wall Street History."
CNBC.22 August 2018. Chang, Sue. "The Dows Tumultuous History, in One Chart."
MarketWatch. 3 February 2018. Martin, Emmie."Heres How Many Americans Have Nothing Saved for Retirement."
CNBC.28 June 2019. President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:  Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent  This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Opera singer reads embarrassingly misprinted lyrics. LEGEND Example:  [Healey and Glanvill, 1994] A friend had landed his first big role as an opera singer, even if it was in a Gilbert and Sullivan show. It had been a struggle for him to find anything prestigious before because his memory was so bad. I'll tell you another thing: he had a terrible memory. But in this case his voice was sufficiently good  a lovely rounded bass  to warrant the producer giving him a chance to prove he could cope. The role was that of the famous Tax Collector and, as a concession, the stage director allowed the singer to have a crib sheet positioned in the pit to remind him of his words. On the opening night, the bass crooner paid more than the standard number of visits to the toilet facilities, but his voice was in good shape. On cue, he strolled confidently onstage and positioned himself in front of his idiot board. The band struck up his theme, and a deep, rich timbre filled the theatre. Sadly, hazards lie in wait for the unwary. The words of the song go, 'My stately pen is never lax  / When I'm assessing income tax'.  Unfortunately, the mischievous scamp who'd felt-tipped the words on to the card had neglected to leave a space between 'pen' and 'is', and the nervous artiste simply sang what he read, bringing a right royal flush to his cheeks  and raising a few eyebrows among the genteel ladies in the boxes. Origins:  Just  as English abounds with puns that play on the  homophony of 'seamen' vs. 'semen',  'seamen' vs. 'semen' numerous bits of humor turn on the slight difference in orthography between the very different concepts 'penis' and 'pen is.'   A favorite proofreading joke with many variations employs a punchline that has the familiar phrase "The pen is mightier than the sword" being rendered as "The penis, mightier than the sword."  The piece featured here comes from a collection of urban legends but is really more joke than legend, its convoluted "opera singer with a really bad memory" set-up a bit too far-fetched for a true belief tale.  (For the record, the lyrics quoted don't correspond to any genuine Gilbert and Sullivan opera.) An item in our Photo Gallery also plays on the orthographic similarity of "pen is" and "penis," and an apocryphal quote often attributed to the wife of French president Charles de Gaulle is based on the homophonic similiarity of other common words to "penis" when pronounced by non-native English speakers. Photo Gallery quote Last updated:  15 March 2014 Urban Myths Unplugged In June and July 2020, ahead of the presidential elections, Democratic candidate Joe Bidens various policy platforms were picked apart and in some cases misrepresented by critics, including U.S. President Donald Trump. One particular statement Biden made about health care for so-called "undocumented" immigrants was misreported and presented without context as his policy. picked apart Snopes readers asked us if Biden had ever said that U.S. taxpayers had an obligation to pay for the health care of 11 million "illegal immigrants." We found that Biden was misquoted, and his actual platform said something very different.   The quote appeared to originate from a clip shared by right-wing media organization BlazeTV, in May 2019. The video carried the title, "Joe Biden Says U.S. Obligated to Give Free Healthcare to 'Undocumented' Immigrants."  In the clip, a reporter asked Biden, Do you think the undocumented immigrants[that] are law abiding, should be entitled to federal benefits, Medicare, Medicaid for example? Biden responded: "Look I think that anyone who is in a situation where theyre in need of healthcare, regardless of whether theyre documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that theyre cared for. Thats why I think we need more clinics around the country." Biden echoed this in the June 2019 Democratic presidential debates. And in a December 2019 interview with Telemundo, he laid out the caveats in his plan: "They can buy into the system like everyone else" under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  June 2019 December 2019 On July 14, 2020, in a rambling speech, Trump misrepresented Biden's policy after it was presented by the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces. Trump said: They want government health care for all illegal aliens. speech misrepresented presented But here's what the task force actually recommended: task force "To ensure that people living and working across the country have health care access, the Task Force recommends extending Affordable Care Act coverage to DACA recipients, allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase unsubsidized coverage in the ACA marketplaces ..." Under this proposal, taxpayers would not be paying for undocumented immigrants health care, rather undocumented immigrants could have the option to pay out-of-pocket for health coverage through the ACA exchange marketplace, but without access to the government subsidies that are available to others. In 2019 Brookings estimated that there are 10.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Currently, they cannot enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace. Some state-funded or locally-funded health programs provide coverage regardless of immigration status. Emergency health services and safety-net clinics are already available to undocumented immigrants, which Biden had advocated for before.  Brookings estimated cannot state-funded available before In summary, even though Biden did state that the U.S. had an obligation to ensure immigrants received health care, his views were largely misrepresented and did not reflect his current policy. While he would extend health care access to undocumented immigrants through the marketplace, it was far from the government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded plan it was made out to be by Trump. We thus rate this claim as false. Dale, Daniel.  "Fact check: Trump Deceives About Sanders-Biden Task Force Proposals to Make Biden Sound 'Extreme.'"
 CNN. 15 July 2020. JoeBiden.com. "Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations."
 July 2020. Japsen, Bruce.  "Bidens Healthcare Idea For Undocumented Immigrants Already Exists."
 Forbes. 6 July 2019. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
 18 March 2020. Kamarck, Elaine and Christine Stenglein. "How Many Undocumented Immigrants are in the United States and Who are They?"
  Brookings Institute. 12 November 2019. Kelley, Alan and Renuka Tipirneni. "An Ironic Health Care Twist for Undocumented Immigrants."
 Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation, University of Michigan. 2 May 2018. Whitehouse.gov. "Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference."
 14 July 2020. Claim:   Congressional recommendations currently under consideration would cut $115 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] House Republicans just voted to slash funding for NPR and PBS this year. We stopped them last year. We can stop them again. Can you ask 3 friends to sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS? https://www.civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting https://www.civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed  piece upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. In June 2006, the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees health and education funding voted to cut federal funding provided to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. The proposed cuts would reduce the corporation's 2007 budget by $115 million, a 23% decrease in funding.  So far the budget cuts are only a subcommittee recommendation; they will not take effect unless they are approved by the full House Appropriations Committee and both houses of Congress. Similar budget cuts recommended by the subcommittee in June 2005 were overturned through lobbying efforts. June 2005 Last updated:  8 June 2006    Sources:   Klein, Rick.  "GOP Takes Aim at PBS Funding."    The Boston Globe.  8 June 2006. A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Albert Einstein once declared compound interest to be "the most powerful force in the universe." UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Sangillo, 2006] There's an urban legend that Albert Einstein once said compounding [interest] is the most powerful force in the universe.  Whether or not he really said it, that line has become my financial motto. I strongly suggest you adopt it.  [Hartgill, 1997] When asked to name the greatest invention in human history, Albert Einstein simply replied "compound interest." Origins:  Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their  mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing  it's called the 17% interest rate."  Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history."  (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.) compound But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing?  The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:  The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place.  (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)  Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity."  (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.") We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch. Last updated:  19 April 2011    Calaprice, Alice.  The New Quotable Einstein.   Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-691-12074-9  (pp. 294-295). The New Quotable Einstein     Dorfman, Dan.  "Fundamental Advice, Phenomenal Success."   USA Today.  2 August 1991  (p. B4).     Hartgill, David.  "Power of Compounding."   The Advertiser.  15 September 1997.     Havemann, Judith.  "Uncle Sam's Dual Standards."   The Washington Post.  23 January 1988  (p. A1).     Langworthy, David.  "Einstein Was Right  So Is 'Wealthy Barber.'"   The Houston Chronicle.  1 June 1998  (p. A20).    Sangillo, Karen.  "All About 'Free Money' and How to Earn It."   Bucks County Courier Times.  5 November 2006.    Shapiro, Fred R.  The Yale Book of Quotations.   New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.  ISBN 0-300-10798-6  (pp. 230-231). The Yale Book of Quotations    Topolnicki, Denise M.  "How You Can Beat the Five Threats to Your Retirement."   The Buffalo News.  8 November 1993  (p. 12).