The IRS doesn't have to prove something against you ... you've got the burden of proof.
The Internal Revenue Service has been on the defensive since the news broke that the agency has been giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Among the lawmakers expressing concern about the IRS was Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va. In a May 17, 2013, interview, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Forbes, What's your No. 1 concern about the IRS being in charge of Obamacare? (Carlson was wrong about the agency's role. It is not in charge, as we addressed with ourrecent fact-check of Michele Bachmann.) Forbes responded, Well, Gretchen, first of all, it is the power that the IRS has that's different than any other agency, any other department. The IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. The idea that the burden of proof rests on the accuser is a bedrock principle of justice around the world. While neither of the terms burden of proof or presumption of innocence appears in the U.S Constitution, an accusers burden of proving that someone has committed a criminal act goes back to ancient times. In 1895, when the Supreme Court issued a resounding defense of the concept in the caseCoffin vs. United States, it cited sources as varied as the Bible, Sparta, Athens and Rome. The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law, the court wrote. So we wondered whether its really the case that the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. You've got the burden of proof. The ways in which Forbes is correct Saving receipts and canceled checks in case the IRS calls is all too familiar to many taxpayers. And generally speaking -- beyond some exceptions that well outline below -- the burden of supplying information is indeed on the taxpayer when he or she is told by the IRS that they underpaid their taxes or when they face an IRS audit. This is a traditional rule, going back a long way, said David Weisbach, a University of Chicago law professor who worked earlier in his career as an attorney-advisor in the Department of Treasurys Office of the Tax Legislative Counsel. The IRS lays out the specifics on aWeb pagetitled Burden of Proof. The responsibility to prove entries, deductions, and statements made on your tax returns is known as the burden of proof, it says. You must be able to prove  certain elements of expenses to deduct them. Generally, taxpayers meet their burden of proof by having the information and receipts  for the expenses. You should keep adequate records to prove your expenses or have sufficient evidence that will support your own statement. You generally must have documentary evidence, such as receipts, canceled checks, or bills, to support your expenses. In other words, the IRS is presumed to be correct unless the taxpayer produces credible evidence to counter the agencys finding, said Timothy Jacobs, a partner specializing in tax law at the firm Hunton & Williams. Its worth noting that as frustrating as this burden may be, the alternative is even worse, said Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor at George Washington University. If the IRS had the burden to produce evidence, it would have to be given access to individuals' private files, in order to find that evidence, he said. Is that what we really want the IRS to be doing? So, for the most common interactions with the IRS, the burden of proof is indeed on the taxpayer. The exceptions to the rule There are a few exceptions to this rule. The most notable, since the penalties are so severe, are for tax-related criminal cases and civil fraud cases. In these types of cases, the burden of proof is essentially the same as it is for any other criminal case: The government, not the taxpayer, has to prove their case. If the government wants to convict you of murder, it has to show that you intentionally killed someone, said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And if the IRS takes you to court, he said, it has to show that you owe a certain amount of taxes and didnt pay it. Technically, Forbes was referring to the burden of production, which is the burden of providing supporting evidence, rather than the burden of proof, which typically refers to the burden of proving a case in court, Buchanan said. Still, the IRS uses the term burden of proof on the Web page that spells out what people have to provide to justify their deductions. So how common are the exceptions? Tax experts said criminal and civil-fraud cases are rare today when compared to ordinary tax-liability cases. Essentially all tax cases are normal, non-fraudulent adjustments, Weisbach said. This ratio of cases suggests that Forbes claim is largely accurate. Nothing the congressman said on the burden of proof would strike me as outside of the norm or the general rule if I or any other tax litigator heard it in everyday conversation, Jacobs said. Our ruling Forbes said the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. Hes correct for most tax disputes. As long as no criminal or fraud charges are being tried, and as long as the case is taken up administratively rather than in court, the burden of justifying a taxpayers calculations falls upon the taxpayer. But in the relatively small number of criminal or civil fraud cases, the burden is on the government, just as it is in other types of prosecutions. On balance, we rate Forbes claim Mostly True.
On 13 February 2019, NASA announced that the mission of a robotic rover named Opportunity had come to an end after the device had spent 15 years exploring the surface of Mars: announced One of the most successful and enduring feats of interplanetary exploration, NASA's Opportunity rover mission is at an end after almost 15 years exploring the surface of Mars and helping lay the groundwork for NASA's return to the Red Planet. The Opportunity rover stopped communicating with Earth when a severe Mars-wide dust storm blanketed its location in June 2018. After more than a thousand commands to restore contact, engineers in the Space Flight Operations Facility at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) made their last attempt to revive Opportunity, to no avail. The solar-powered rover's final communication was received June 10. As the online world mourned the loss of the famous Martian explorer, many social media users started sharing a quote that supposedly constituted Oppy's final transmission to NASA: "My battery is low and its getting dark."  This quote quickly made its way around the Internet, shared by celebrities, reporters, and social media influencers. Some people also created tributes to Opportunity that featured the rover's alleged final transmission: influencers   Although many individuals and news outlets cited these words as if they constituted a verbatim reproduction of Opportunity's final transmission, the phrase was not a literal reproduction of the robotic rover's last statement. news outlets The quote originated with a Twitter thread about Oppy's demise by posted by KPCC science reporter Jacob Margolis. At one point, Margolis said the rover's final transmission "basically" translated as "my battery is low and it's getting dark": thread basically   This quote quickly escaped the context of Margolis' Twitter thread, however, and started to circulate as if he were relaying a verbatim message from the Mars rover. On 16 February 2019, Margolis published an article on The LAist website explaining how his words came to be taken out of context: The LAist My tweet is an interpretation of what two scientists from the Mars Exploration Rover Mission told me. Deputy Project Scientist Abigail Fraeman spoke about what it was like when they realized the June [2018] dust storm was going to be particularly bad, and that Oppy's life was in danger. They told it to conserve energy. "It's hard, because you know [the storm's] coming ... but there's nothing you can do to stop it," Fraeman said. "By Thursday, we knew that it was bad. And then by Friday, we knew it was really bad, but there was nothing we could do but watch. And then it was Sunday, we actually got a communication from the rover and we were shocked," she said. "It basically said we had no power left, and that was the last time we heard from it." John Callas, the project manager, offered another poignant detail about the final communication with Oppy: "It also told us the skies were incredibly dark, to the point where no sunlight gets through. It's night time during the day." "We were hopeful that the rover could ride it out. That the rover would hunker down, and then when the storm cleared, the rover would charge back up," he said. "That didn't happen. At least it didn't tell us that it happened. So, we don't know." When NASA announced the completion of Opportunity's mission in February 2019, the Mars rover hadn't communicated with the space agency since the previous June. The solar-powered Opportunity was low on power when one of the largest dust storms observed on Mars engulfed the planet and, essentially, turned "day into night," as the Planetary Society wrote:  communicated Planetary Society On June 20th, NASA announced the storm had gone global. To be more accurate, it evolved into a planetary-encircling dust event (PEDE), lofting enough dust into the atmosphere to completely blanket the planet and block out the Sun. In other words, the Red Planet and most all its features were hidden from most orbiting instruments beneath an opaque, beige dust cloud. The atmospheric scientists taking measurements with instruments on the orbiters were soon blocked out. Oppy sent its final message from the surface of Mars on 10 June 2018: final message Opportunity downlinked what would turn out to be her final message from Mars on June 10, 2018. The bare bones contents of that missive informed her crew that a monster dust storm was lifting dust all around Endeavour Crater and was turning day into night there. Minutes later, the solar-powered robot field geologist presumably shut down and went into a kind of hibernation mode to wait out the storm. NASA attempted to communicate with Opportunity many times after the storm passed, but the rover never responded:  Margolis, Jacob.  "How a Tweet About The Mars Rover Dying Blew Up on the Internet and Made People Cry."
  The LAist.  16 February 2019. Rayl, A.J.S.  "The Mars Exploration Rovers Update: Opportunity Sleeps as Storm Chasers Study Planet-Encircling Dust Cloud."
  Planetary Society.  4 July 2018. Rayl, A.J.S.  "The Mars Exploration Rovers Update Special Report: NASA Declares Opportunity and MER Mission Complete."
  Planetary Society.  14 February 2019. NASA.  "NASA's Opportunity Rover Mission on Mars Comes to End."
  13 February 2019. As a presidential candidate, one of Donald Trump's main campaign promises was to improve the treatment of United States military veterans and initiate major reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). reforms However, the president faced criticism during 2018 budget talks amidst reports that he was proposing significant cuts to benefits for disabled veterans. On 17 January 2018, a meme appeared on social media that specified a facet of that criticism: meme   As is usually the case with memes and macros, this was not an entirely accurate summation of the political situation. President Trump did propose cutting a particular benefit for some disabled veterans in his March 2017 federal budget proposal; however, his administration backed away from the plan after an outcry from veterans' groups and abandoned the provisions that would have produced those cuts. The Facebook meme appeared to have originated in an analysis of President Trump's budget plan contained in journalist David Cay Johnston's book It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America. On page 225, Johnston wrote that: journalist book page 225 The biggest cut Trump proposed [in his 2018 budget] was ending a benefit for disabled veterans once they reach the minimum age for Social Security benefits. These veterans would see their income plunge from almost $35,000 annually to less than $13,000 if the Trump plan becomes law.  The benefit is called "individual unemployability" (IU) and is paid out (as part of the Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation program) to military veterans who are unable to find work because they have a relatively high level of disability sustained during service in the armed forces,  according to the VA: VA Individual Unemployability ... allows VA to pay certain Veterans disability compensation at the 100% rate, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at the total level. In order to qualify for IU, a veteran must be assessed as being at least 60 percent disabled due to a service-connected disability or disabilities. As Johnston correctly wrote, Donald Trump's initial 2018 budget proposal ended individual unemployability for disabled veterans once they became eligible to receive Social Security benefits. However, Johnston did not mention that, under President Trump's proposal, disabled veterans who received Social Security benefits would continue to be paid disability benefits by the VA, albeit at their originally-assessed disability rate (rather than at a 100 percent rate), and anyone not eligible for Social Security would continue to receive IU. The 2018 budget proposal outlined the proposed changes: outlined Veterans eligible for Social Security retirement benefits would have their IU terminated upon reaching the minimum retirement age for Social Security purposes, or upon enactment of the proposal if the Veteran is already in receipt of Social Security retirement benefits. These Veterans would continue to receive VA disability benefits based on their original disability rating, at the scheduler evaluation level. IU benefits would not be terminated for Veterans who are ineligible for Social Security retirement benefits, thus allowing them to continue to receive IU past minimum retirement age. The Trump administration estimated that the proposed cuts would save $3.2 billion in 2018 and $40.8 billion over 10 years and had proposed using those savings to help fund a plan to expand and make permanent the Obama administration's Veterans Choice Program, which seeks to improve the availability of care for veterans in their own communities.  Veterans Choice Program Veterans organizations strongly criticized the IU proposal in early 2017, with veterans service organization AMVETS warning that it was "deeply concerned" by the cuts, which they said would affect "perhaps the most vulnerable segment of the veterans population": AMVETS warning The argument for this cut is that these senior citizens would be eligible for Social Security retirement benefits at age 65. That argument is flawed because these veterans have largely been disabled, out of the work force and not paying into Social Security for many years before reaching 65. Many have been severely disabled as a result of their military service and unable to work since the day of their discharge. AMVETS estimated that Trump's proposal would affect 225,000 military veterans aged over 65 and would decrease by a full $1,200 a month the disability benefit paid to an unmarried veteran with a 90 percent disabled rating.  The payments that veterans receive under IU depends upon their disability rating and family circumstances, as outlined by the VA. For example, a veteran with a 60 percent disability rating who lives alone would theoretically receive $1,083.52 in disability benefits each month. However, under individual unemployability, veterans are treated as if they had a disability rating of 100 percent, meaning they would receive $2,973.86 each month.  For veterans eligible to receive Social Security, Trump's plan would have pruned their monthly disability benefit back to the 60 percent rate, a highly significant cut of $1,890.34, or 63.6 percent. Over the course of a year, that would have brought their disability benefits down from $35,686.32 to $13,002.24, roughly the amounts mentioned by David Cay Johnston in his book and in the Facebook meme. VA Such veterans would be in receipt of Social Security benefits as well, but it's easy to see the significant financial effects the plan would have had on an aging veteran who was unable to work and who lived alone. By comparison, a retirement-aged veteran with a 90 percent disability rating and a dependent spouse, a child, and two parents would have seen annual disability benefits cut from $42,326.64 to $27,356.16, a decrease of 35.4 percent. In June 2017, VA Secretary David Shulkin publicly stepped back from the proposed IU cut, telling the Senate Veterans' Affair Committee that: telling As I began to listen to veterans and their concerns and VSOs [Veterans Service Organizations] in particular, it became clear that this would be hurting some veterans, and that this would be a take-away from veterans that can't afford to have those benefits taken away. And I'm really concerned about that...I am not going to support policies that hurt veterans. The following October, Shulkin wrote to veterans service organizations to confirm that the VA no longer supported ending IU for disabled veterans who are eligible to receive Social Security. wrote Johnston's analysis, and the Facebook meme posted by Stacey Sharp, are both true in a narrow sense. The amounts they mentioned were accurate but were based on only one of many possible scenarios for disabled veterans.  The latter, published in January 2018, left out that the proposal had been abandoned by then. Merica, Dan.  "Trump Signs VA Reform Bill, Making Good on a Campaign Promise."
   CNN.  23 June 2017. Johnston, David Cay.  It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America.
  Simon & Schuster, 2018.  ISBN 1-501-17416-9  (p. 225).

 Hoellwarth, John.  "AMVETS Deeply Concerned by President's Proposed Cuts to Veteran Benefits."
  American Veterans. 24 May 2017. Wentling, Nikki.  "VA Secretary Promises in Writing Not to Cut Benefit Program for Disabled Vets."
  Stars and Stripes.  13 October 2017. In late November 2023, Facebook users shared variations of a viral warning about a relatively new iPhone feature called NameDrop, also known as "Bringing Devices Together." The posts hinted that NameDrop, dubbed by Apple as "a new AirDrop experience," was dangerous, and said that users needed to take action to protect their privacy and security. Multiple U.S. police department Facebook pages also shared the warnings, which perhaps was one of the reasons that we received so many reader emails about this rumor. U.S. police department Facebook pages We reviewed multiple versions of the same warning about NameDrop on iPhone devices. One such warning read as follows: warning IMPORTANT PRIVACY UPDATE: If you have an iPhone and have done the recent iOS 17 update, they have set a new feature called NameDrop defaulted to ON. This feature allows the sharing of your contact info just by bringing your phones close together. While you do need to accept the transfer, if you would prefer to shut this off go to: Settings, General, AirDrop, Bringing Devices Together. Change to OFF. PARENTS: You may consider changing these settings after the update on your childrens phones, also, to help keep them safe as well! Despite the virality of these warnings, here's the truth: These posts are based on a misunderstanding of how the NameDrop feature works with an iPhone, just like so many other technological scares that in past years were also virally shared on Facebook. Barring the possibility of any future security holes being uncovered by users, the NameDrop feature was designed with multiple layers of protection. NameDrop is a feature that allows two users to hold their iPhone devices very close to each other in order to share a phone number or email address. This also works with an iPhone and an Apple Watch or two Apple Watches. NameDrop Basically, instead of asking a friend for their contact details or handing your device to a friend to have them input their information, NameDrop allows this exchange of basic data to happen in a much easier, yet still secure, manner. The feature was first included in the software update known as iOS 17. It released in September 2023 after being announced in June. iOS 17 announced  Apple says that, for NameDrop to work, users' devices must be "within a few centimeters" of each other to initiate the first step of the process. Also, both users must be signed into iCloud. Users can then select if they want to share their phone number or email address and must tap a "Share" button to complete the exchange of one of the two pieces of basic contact data. To be clear, no contact information is automatically shared when two devices are brought together without a user taking action. Further, NameDrop does not work unless the devices are already unlocked. Think of the following scenario: You sit down in a cozy coffee shop with your phone in your purse or on the table. Another customer is sitting several tables away. That other customer isn't going to be able to initiate the NameDrop feature on your phone because the devices are further apart than the "within a few centimeters" of proximity specified by Apple. Even if that other customer walks by and bumps into the purse or your phone on the table, if your phone is locked with a passcode or other security feature, they couldn't even begin initiating the NameDrop feature. Further, even if your phone is unlocked, you would still have to tap some buttons in order for the person to receive your contact details. In other words, there are multiple layers of security that were implemented for the NameDrop feature that are meant to protect users. The only way a person could misuse the NameDrop feature on your phone is if they take your unlocked phone away from you without your permission and initiate the sharing of contact information. However, this does not make the NameDrop feature unsafe. It simply means that you need to not allow strangers to take your unlocked phone away from you. All of the data we've detailed above led us to our rating of False, meaning that, as the authoritative tech blog Wired.com put it in the headline of their article, "No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17." article If users, including parents, still wish to turn off the NameDrop feature, simply navigate on an iPhone to "Settings," "General" and then "AirDrop." To disable NameDrop, toggle the "Bringing Devices Together" feature to off. This screenshot shows NameDrop ("Bringing Devices Together") enabled. Parents can learn more about parental controls for Apple devices on the company's website. website Apple Announces Powerful New Privacy and Security Features. Apple Newsroom, 5 June 2023, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/apple-announces-powerful-new-privacy-and-security-features/. Combs, Mary-Elisabeth. Heres Everything to Know About NameDrop on iPhone. CNET, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/heres-everything-to-know-about-namedrop-on-iphone/. Hardwick, Tim. iOS 17: How to Share Contact Details With NameDrop. MacRumors, 14 Sept. 2023, https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/ios-share-contact-details-with-namedrop/. iOS 17. Apple, https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/. Rogers, Reece. No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17. Wired, 27 Nov. 2023,https://www.wired.com/story/apple-iphone-namedrop-ios17/. Use NameDrop on iPhone to Share Your Contact Info. Apple Support, https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/namedrop-iphone-share-contact-info-iph1b6c664b7/ios. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trumps business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J.. Earlier this year, many of Trumps GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warners communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trumps business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trumps business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Lets take a look. 1991 bankruptcy Trumps first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story. 1992 bankruptcies Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the companys largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News. The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trumps Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers The next question: Is Trump personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warners statement says? Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying theyve allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that hes rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement. ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgement that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. Theyve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged, Viscount told Forbes. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it. Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote. And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies? Levitin wrote. I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name. Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid. The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space, Levitin said. These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him. Our ruling Warner said Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warners statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and thats harder to parse out. Theres no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasnt acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. Theres also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warners statement Mostly True. In July 2021, as the pandemic-delayed 2020 Olympic games approached, an interesting tidbit about basketball, Lithuania, and the 1960s psychedelic rock band the Grateful Dead started to circulate on social media. A viral Reddit post claimed that "after the breakup of the USSR, the Lithuanian basketball team couldn't afford to participate in the 1992 Olympics, so the Grateful Dead funded the team's expenses and sent a box of tie-dyed outfits in Lithuania's national colours. They went on to win bronze."  claimed This post is generally accurate. The Grateful Dead really did sponsor Lithuania's men's basketball team, and they did provide the team with tie-dyed shirts bearing the country's national colors (yellow, green, and red), and a "Skullman" logo designed by Greg Speirs, which can be seen above. Our one quibble with this claim is that the band was not the team's sole source of funding. While the Grateful Dead did provide the team some financial support (one report states that the band wrote a $5,000 check), the band's main contribution was that it allowed the team to sell special Grateful Dead merchandise, which proved massively popular with fans at the 1992 Olympic Games.  "Skullman" logo Greg Speirs Here's a newspaper clipping from 1992 about the popularity of these shirts. According to Grateful Dead spokesman Dennis McNally, some 20,000 shirts sold in the first week. A third of the money raised went to the Lithuanian Olympic Committee, and the band got "nothing more than a good time."  28 Aug 1992, Fri The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) Newspapers.com  28 Aug 1992, Fri The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) Newspapers.com The Grateful Dead's connection with the Lithuanian basketball team started in 1992 when Sarunas Marciulionis, the team's star guard, and scout Donnie Nelson showed up at a garage in San Francisco to hear the band play. The team, which would be competing in its first Olympic games since the country declared independence from the Soviet Union a few years earlier, was seeking sponsors to fund their trip to Barcelona.  Here's an excerpt from an article published on NBCOlympics.com in 2012 (archived here): NBCOlympics.com On a cold and windy Bay Area winter day 20 years ago, Sarunas Marciulionis and Donnie Nelson, a starting guard and a scout, respectively, for the Golden State Warriors, knocked uncertainly on the door of a nondescript garage in San Francisco. The Grateful Dead is in here? Nelson thought to himself. Somebody said to enter, and so they did, metaphorical hats in hand, taking in the sights and, more vividly, the smells. "Well, there was a little pot going on," Nelson recalls today. "The Dead were trying out Beatles covers, doing stuff like 'Here Comes the Sun' and 'Hey Jude,' but they were just kind of working through things and sounding kind of nasally. Sarunas pulls me aside and says, 'Donnie, no way these guys are famous. They're terrible.'" Nelson shakes his head and smiles. "I always think back and wonder what it would be like if someone caught that scene today -- Sarunas in the Dead pot garage." The Dead had heard about the Marciulionis-Nelson crusade to raise money to enable Lithuania, Marciulionis's native land, to try to qualify for the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. "You're all about liberty and freedom and, man, we're all about that, too, so we dig what you guys are doing," said Jerry Garcia, the Dead's leader. That's a paraphrase but, if you've ever heard Jerry (who died in 1995), it's pretty close. NBC reported that the band ended up writing the team a check for $5,000. More importantly, the band gave the team a license to use and sell special Olympics-Grateful Dead merchandise. These items were a major hit and helped the team raise funds that were then used to fund their participation in the 1996 Olympics.  Strong anti-Soviet reaction from the West helped force a treaty, but by the time Marciulionis decided that he wanted to field a team, the nation was nearly bankrupt. He donated some of the money from his $1.28 million Golden State contract, and, with the help of Nelson, whom he had tapped to be Lithuania's assistant coach, set out to raise the rest. Getting the Dead was a major coup. The band wrote a check for $5,000 but more importantly granted Lithuania the rights to sell a Dead t-shirt, a stoned-out psychedelic masterpiece splashed with Lithuania's national colors of green, red, and yellow and anchored by the Dead's skeleton symbol. Purely from a fund-raising perspective, sales of the t-shirt had more to do with the 1996 Olympics; it financed most of Lithuania's participation in the Atlanta Games. But the t-shirt became the hit of the '92 Games, more treasured than any of the merchandise bearing the likeness of Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, the stalwarts of the United States Dream Team. The shirt kept Lithuania in the news, told the story of its heroic struggle for freedom, its battle to get to Barcelona (it earned a spot through the European Olympic qualifier) and its quest for a medal. For many American basketball fans, the 1992 Olympics are probably remembered for the dominant play of the "Dream Team," the American Olympic team that featured superstars such as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird. But the Lithuanian team made its mark as well. In 2012, a documentary was released entitled "The Other Dream Team," which followed Arvydas Sabonis and arnas Mariulionis on their somewhat psychedelic journey to a bronze medal.   Updated [1 September 2021]: Updated to credit designer of Skullman logo. In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia. pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ  Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017 May 15, 2017  Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. achievements In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007 As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on 5 May 2017 indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: reported The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007.  It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. unemployment To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out: according So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. SoftBank $50B Exxon $20B Hyundai $3.1B Apple $1B Chrysler $1B GM $1B Bayer AG $1BToyota $600M LG $250M This is a mostly-accurate, partial list of corporations who have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). Softbank Exxon Mobil Corp. Hyundai-Kia Apple Fiat Chrysler General Motors Bayer AG Toyota LG Electronics It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017: reported Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trumps America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months  or even years  in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. promise The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted  a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.  was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14  three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You dont just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016: commitment analysts Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. reported $182B in April 2017 It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March.  MarketWatch review inflated It remains to be seen what effect Tump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on 30 September). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. DOW at 20,896 The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office  positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by 16 May, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. 20,940.51 20,981.94 news Currently at 125.6 It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). fell Passed 32 bills through Congress As of 17 May 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). signed number That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approves the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. changed renamed Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. Appointed constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 7 April 2017. true After 8 years of inaction This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on 23 January 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak."  signing 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings and deportation of violent and repeat offenders The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. This U.S. Customs and Border Protection chart shows how striking the change was compared to the previous five years: statistics   CNN Water contamination crisis started in April 2014 It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment."  awarded crisis As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. article Strengthening relationships  China  Japan  Russia  UK Tough on North Korea Tough on Syria Freed Humanitarian Workers from Egypt Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. China: The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province,not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. call met rated Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. Russia: U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, were strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. U.K.: British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. BBC Tough on Korea? President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that county's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation.  calls experts Tough on Syria? In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. attack Humanitarian workers in Egypt: In April 2017 President Trump negotiated the release of U.S.. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking.  negotiated Trimming the fat at many overblown government agencies and promoting small business growth by reigning in the EPA Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on 13 March 2017 directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. signed Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: priorities President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency  a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change  and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. hailed threat  Finished Dakota Access Pipeline & reversed Obama's "Land Grab" EO, freeing US to use our own natural resources The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on 1 June 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments: halted revived directing Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr Trump singled out former President Barack Obamas egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, its time we ended this abusive practice. Antiquities Act As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in. Baker, Peter and Davenport, Coral.  "Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama."
 The New York Times.  24 January 2017. Bradner, Eric.  "Trump's TPP Withdrawal: 5 Things to Know."
 CNN.  23 January 2017. Bunge, Jacob and Alessi, Christopher.  "Bayer, After Trump Meeting, Pledges to Add Thousands of U.S. Jobs."
 The Wall Street Journal.  18 January 2017. Carroll, Lauren.  "Trump Has Signed More Bills in 100 Days than Any President Since Truman, Spicer Says."
 Politifact.com.  27 April 2017. Crutsinger, Martin.  "Federal Government Records $182.4 Billion Budget Surplus."
 Associated Press.  10 May 2017. DeCambre, Mark.  "How Trump's Stock Market Ranks During His First 100 Days in Office."
 MarketWatch.  30 April 2017. Green, Miranda.  "Trump's EPA: Cuts, Infighting and No Talk of Climate Change."
 CNN.  4 May 2017. Greene, Leonard.  "Stock Market Suffers Biggest Blow Since President Trump Took Office."
 New York Daily News.  17 May 2017. Ivanova, Irina.  "Trump Isn't the Reason Corporate America Is Investing in the U.S."
 CBS News.  18 January 2017. Kopan, Tal.  "Does Border Drop Mean Trump's Tough Talk Is Working?"
 CNN.  9 March 2017. Kulish, Nicholas and Santos, Fernanda.  "Illegal Border Crossings Appear to Drop Under Trump.
 The New York Times.  8 March 2017. Liptak, Adam and Flegenheimer, Matt.  "Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice."
 The New York Times.  7 April 2017. McKelvey, Tara.  "Special Relationship Gets a New Lease on Life."
 BBC.  27 January 2017. Robb, Greg.  "U.S. April Budget Surplus Rises to $182 Billion."
 MarketWatch.  10 May 2017. Rucker, Philip and DeYoung, Karen.  "Freed Egyptian American Prisoner Returns Home Following Trump Intervention."
 The Washington Post.  20 April 2017. Ryan, Missy, Denyer, Simon and Rauhala, Emily.  "On North Korea, Trump Administration Talks Tough but Hopes to Avoid War."
 The Washington Post.  19 April 2017. Ryan, Tim.  "Trump Directs Department Heads to Trim Agency Fat."
 Courthouse News.  14 March 2017. Savransky, Rebecca.  "Tillerson: U.S.-Russia Relationship 'At an All-Time Low Point' Since End of Cold War."
 The Hill.  14 May 2017. Thomas, Lauren.  "Consumer Confidence Lags in April as Americans Are Less Optimistic About Economy."
 CNBC.  25 April 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "Trump Executive Order Calls for Review of 'Egregious' Federal Land Grab."
 CBS News.  26 April 2017. Boston Herald.  "Editorial: Getting Tough in Syria."
 20 May 2017. CBO.gov.  "Monthly Budget Review for April 2017."
 5 May 2017. Democracy Now.  "Trump's Proposed EPA Cuts Threaten Health & Lives of Tens of Millions of Americans."
 3 March 2017. NFIB.com.  "In Targeting the Waters of the United States Rule, President Trump Looks to Dismantle Another Burdensome Regulation."
 3 March 2017. PRNewsWire.com.  "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined in April."
 25 April 2017. TradingEconomics.com.  "United States Unemployment Rate."
 5 May 2017. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  "Southwest Border Migration."
 1 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Japan's Abe Talks Trump."
 22 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Trump's Pretty Good China Deal."
 14 May 2017. A tale nearly identical in structure to the legend about the dead animal shipped by air freight (which handlers mistakenly thought had died in transit) is the following: dead animal A man moves to town and hunts around for an apartment to rent, but he's turned down by most landlords because of his large dog (mastiff, doberman, etc.). He finally secures a carriage house that's in the backyard of a house owned by two old women by assuring the ladies that the dog is perfectly  friendly, which, of course, it is. The landladies have a rabbit hutch in the backyard which contains two white rabbits. Months pass, and everyone gets along just fine. The man had trained the dog not to pester the rabbits while he's away at work, and the dog is quite obedient. One night, though, the man returns from a long weekend away on business. His dog is beside itself with joy to see the master return, but it's late, the man is tired, so he plops right down in bed and falls asleep, leaving the dog outside. In the middle of the night the man is woken up by the strange sounds that his dog is making outside the bedroom window, a kind of muffled whimpering. When he opens the front door he sees the dog standing there with one of the rabbits in its mouth! After a quick smack or two on the head the dog drops the rabbit on the ground, and the man immediately picks the bunny up and brings it inside where it's light. The rabbit is brown with dirt but apparently undamaged, so the man rushes to wash it off and dry it. He slips out the door into the dark night, returns the rabbit to the hutch, and brings the dog inside. Thinking the women won't notice, he falls asleep. In the morning, as he's leaving the carriage house for work, he sees the two old ladies standing around the rabbit hutch, which he must pass by on his way out of the backyard. He figures everything's alright and the rabbit is unhurt, but when he walks up and says good morning he notices that the women are completely distraught and crying. In fact, one of the women is making the sign of the cross over and over again. The man knows that he's probably been caught, but he decides to be cagey and asks, "What happened? Did the rabbits die?" "Well, one of them did," replies one of the women, "but we buried him three days ago and now he's back in the hutch!" Both legends feature persons who, mistakenly believing themselves to be responsible for the death of someone else's pet, try to cover up their culpability by replacing the dead animals  only to find that they have exacerbated an unfortunate situation by substituting a live (or seemingly live) pet in place of one that was already dead.    A reader tried to slip one past "Dear Abby" advice columnist Jeanne Phillips by submitting an even more twisted version of this tale to her as a first-person experience in September 2004. To her credit, Ms. Phillips spotted it as an urban legend: DEAR ABBY: Last year, my husband's pet rabbit, "Blossom," died. My husband, "Edwin," went into the back yard one morning and found her dead in her cage. He buried her in our yard. Later that day, our neighbor's dog dug up the rabbit. When the neighbor came home, he found the little body on his doorstep. Thinking his dog had killed Blossom, he panicked. He ran out, bought another rabbit that looked just like Blossom, and placed her in our cage. When Edwin returned from work that night, he was stunned to find the rabbit sitting in its cage and immediately concluded that Blossom had returned from the dead. Ever since, my husband has treated the rabbit like a little deity. He built an altar for her and sits in front of her cage in the lotus position and talks to her.  The neighbors have since moved, but last week I ran into the wife and she told me the story. Thinking it might help Edwin, I repeated the story to him. He became irate and accused me of trying to ruin the only miraculous thing that had ever happened to him.  Should I insist that Edwin seek counseling, or should I continue to live with this? I really don't know where it will end. - At My Wit's End DEAR WIT'S END: You may not, but I do. It's going to end here and now. According to snopes.com, your rabbit tale is an urban legend, and so old it has whiskers. Thank you for sharing it with me. It's still a thigh-slapper. Variations: In some versions the dead pet or the "killer" pet is a cat.  The rabbit's owners generally believe some demented person  exhumed their pet and replaced it in its pen.  In a few versions, however, they think they mistakenly buried the animal alive, and it clawed its way back to the surface, only to die of exhaustion after reaching its cage.  The dog's owners learn that the rabbit was already dead from the police, or by talking to the rabbit's owners across the backyard fence. Sightings: We're told a non-talk show sighting of this legend appears in Jeff Foxworthy's 1989 recording, Sold Out, and this tale also formed the plot of an episode of The Chris Isaak Show ("Crimes and Punishment," original air date 26 March 2001).  The same story plays out in the 2003 film, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Curses! Broiled Again!
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.  ISBN 0-393-30711-5  (pp. 151-156).

 Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good to Be True.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 40-43).

 de Vos, Gail.  Tales, Rumors and Gossip.
  Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 216).

 Phillips, Jeanne.  "Hare-Raising Tale Is Too Good to Be True."  [syndicated column]
  Universal Press Syndicate.  8 September 2004.

 Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  Gruesome Urban Myths.
  Bucks, Great Britain: Ginn and Company, 1995.  ISBN 0-602-26200-3  (pp. 32-35).

 The Big Book of Urban Legends.
  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 41). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths.
  London: Virgin Books, 1996.  ISBN 0-86369-969-3  (pp. 99-100). On 17February2017, the Newslo web sitepublished an articlereporting that televangelist Pat Robertson had said "staring" at First Lady Melania Trump was an activity sufficient to "cure gays": Newslo article When Christian Conservative leader Pat Robertson discussed the RNC convention in his TV show The 700 Club last July, he managed once again to turn the topic to controversy surrounding Melania Trumps speech. Robertson had agreed with many people when he said, Trumps speechwriter should be fired for doing  or borrowing a few lines from Mrs. Obama. But then the televangelist got creepy when he started discussing Mrs. Trumps appearance, when he said, We mentioned the language in that speech, although she was absolutely gorgeous and I think thats why they wanted to put her on. She had a beautiful dress and shes a lovely lady. Trump knows when hes got a winner. Lately, hes been at it again. On the most recent episode of his show, the televangelist argued that the sole reason the mainstream media is targeting President Donald Trump is, once again, his wife. Robertson opined that the beauty of First Lady Melania Trump is so incredible that just by staring at her for a period of time, one can rid themselves of the plague of homosexualism. You know how there used to be this urban myth that men can prolong their natural lives just by staring at naked female breasts for 10 minutes a day? Well, this is sort of something similar to that, with one crucial difference: its not an urban myth, Robertson said. Shes an actual gay whisperer, that one. female breasts Newslo(along with sister sitesReligionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo)typically combine a tiny grain of truth with a balance of lies, as was the case in the above-quoted material. Newslo's trio offake news sites include a buttonallowingreaders toshow facts or hide facts," but since by default all their content displays in hide facts mode, most visitors are not aware ofthe fictional embellishments they add: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo fake news  In this case, Pat Robertson's remarks about Mrs. Trump's being a "lovely lady" were genuinely something he said on CBNon 16 July 2016, but the balance of the Newslo article was fabricated, and Robertson never referred to Mrs. Trump as an "actual gay whisperer." Robertson is a frequent target ofNewslo and its brethren, where segments from the700 Club are regularly embellished to create share-worthy fabrications. remarks target Examples: [Hepburn, 2005] Stray dogs are being skewered on hooks and dragged behind boats as live shark bait. The cruel practice takes place on French-controlled Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, where Prince William spent two holidays. A six-month-old labrador pup was recently found ALIVE with a huge double hook through its snout  like the dog above  and another through a leg. The pup was found in a coastal creek and is thought to have somehow freed itself from a fishing line. But other dogs and kittens have been chomped up and swallowed by sharks. The RSPCA plans to petition the French government, demanding an end to the hideous torture.  [Collected on the Internet, September 2012] PETITION: Please help stop French Islander and Mexican fishermen using live dogs and kittens as shark bait To: The French and Mexican Governments We have to stop this PLEASE help! French Islanders using live puppies and kittens as shark bait?? Please stop this senseless abuse to innocent puppies and kittens. French Islander and Mexican fishermen are using LIVE puppies and kittens as shark bait!! No living being should have to undergo this torture and insurmountable fear! This is inhumane and must stop NOW. Together we can make a difference and let our voice be heard as ONE. Please sign this petition and please pass this along. Thank you for caring. Blessed be Currently the penalty is only 2 years and $36,000 that is far too little for such a heinous crime. We urge that you raise the penalty to 10 years in prison with NO parole and a fine of $100,000. This will hopefully act as a deterrent and will stop these horrendous acts against innocent animals. Please do the right thing and help us stop these people. Islanders on the French controlled Reunion Island have been using live dogs as shark bait. The Sun claims that a six-month-old labrador pup was recently found alive with a huge double hook through its snout  like the dog above  and another through a leg. It is also claimed that local fisherman have also been using kittens! Reunion Island is an overseas dpartements of France and an official region of France, giving it the same status as a province or state in other countries. The claim that live dogs (and cats) were being used as bait by shark fisherman on Runion Island (a French-controlled territory just off the coast of Southern Africa in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar) started hitting the world press in August 2005 and picked up steam in early October 2005, when it was reported by publications such as the UK's Sun (an excerpt from which is quoted at the head of this page) and Sweden's Aftonbladet, complete with a heart-rending picture of a purported "bait dog" with a large hook through its muzzle. Animal rights groups such as the RSPCA have taken up the cause of putting a stop to the horrible practice. Runion Island Sun Aftonbladet RSPCA Many observers remain skeptical of such claims, however, positing theories that range from media and animal rights groups having been taken in by a hoax to a deliberate disinformation campaign being waged by activists who seek to end the slaughter of sharks for their fins and cartilage by Indian Ocean fisherman. Arguments have flown back and forth over the practicality and plausibility (or lack thereof) of Runion Islanders fishing for sharks in the manner described. activists A 2006 Runion newspaper article acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman (and amateur fisherman) on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, suggesting that although there may be some truth to the shark-fishing claim, the practice does not appear to be as widespread or horrific (or tolerated) as implied by news reports in the foreign press. Rather than describing hordes of shark fisherman impaling live dogs on hooks and dragging them behind boats as shark bait, the article noted that employing dogs in shark-fishing was largely the province of a small group of amateur fisherman rather than large numbers of professionals, that the dogs used were generally dead animals picked up from roadsides or culled from the island's large population of unwanted strays (estimated at 150,000), and that the no-longer-alive animals were attached to unattended buoyed "shark trap" platforms rather than dragged alive behind boats. article The French embassy in Washington, D.C., also maintained that although the practice was not unknown, its occurrence and acceptance was not nearly as prevalent as recent news reports had made it seem: Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for writing to us with your concerns. We too denounce the barbaric practices you refer to. Such acts are obviously illegal and will not be tolerated on French territory. But while we share your revulsion, we would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is in fact exceptional and isolated. It was never widespread nor traditional, but introduced by ruthless individuals, and has been strictly banned for decades now. TV reports that raised initial indignation when they were aired in France and abroad in 2005 were filmed locally in 2003 following the discovery of a mutilated dog. The last few months have seen two identical events which received heavy media coverage (one of these events was soon determined to be a false alarm). But can these vile occurrences lead us to conclude that there is an ongoing tradition of barbarism on Reunion Island? Reunion Island, a French territory and a European region, obeys the laws and regulations of the French Republic and the European Union. It respects the rule of law and does not practice inhumane ancestral practices. The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated, irresponsible parties who are being sought by the police and will be brought to justice. The authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation; one person is in custody and appeared in court on Friday September 30, 2005. All suspicions of such acts will be investigated, and animal protection organizations that have any specific information on these matters are strongly encouraged to inform French police authorities. The French minister for agriculture and fisheries, Dominique Bussereau, is fully aware of the media and public outcry regarding this issue, and has written to the French National Assembly to emphasize that several measures have been taken to strengthen already existing laws. Veterinarians have been directed to immediately report any suspicious wounds to authorities, and the police will increase their inspections of fishing and pleasure vessels. Meanwhile, a sterilization campaign, launched in 2001 to reduce the number of stray dogs and cats on the island, continues. Animal rights are an important issue in France: over half of French households have at least one pet, and France has some of the world's most stringent animal rights legislation. French law provides for the prosecution of those who are cruel to animals. Voluntary cruelty to animals is punishable by a sentence of two years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine (equivalent to about $36,000). Sincerely, Press Office.Cordialement / RegardsService de Presse et d'Information / Press & Information ServiceAmbassade de France / Embassy of FranceWashington, D.C. The photo displayed at the top of this page, which has adorned several news articles and humane society-related web pages on this topic, is a frame from a 2005 video produced by the 30 Million Friends Foundation. The video purportedly documents the case of a dog that had escaped from fishermen who planned to use it as shark bait; skeptics have questioned the authenticity of the video, maintaining that it merely shows the aftermath of an accidental entanglement that has been mistakenly or deceptively misused for publicity's sake. video A similar video purporting to document the practice using kittens as shark bait appears to be a hoax, intercutting shots of kittens' being dunked in water and dangled from wires with unrelated footage of ocean fishing activity:  Hepburn, Ian.  Dogs Used as Shark Bait.
 The Sun. 1 October 2005. Mott, Maryann.  Dogs Used as Shark Bait on French Island.
 National Geographic News. 19 October 2005. Aftonbladet. Valpen Skulle Bli Hajmat.
  2 October 2005. Clicanoo. Lhomme, Le Meilleur Ennemi du Chien.
  30 September 2005. On Jan. 26, 2020, a helicopter crash in California killed NBA legend Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna, and seven other passengers. As the world reacted to this tragic news, some social media users noted that the outpouring of grief might be slightly misplaced because, they claimed, 30 Marines had also "just" died in a helicopter crash: helicopter crash   These social media users were referring to a genuine news story. However, they were mistaken that the helicopter crash that killed 30 Marines and a sailor had occurred "yesterday" or recently in January 2020. That incident actually took place in 2005, in Iraq. Here's a screenshot of the Navy news release about the 2005 helicopter crash: Navy news release   Readers may have noticed that this news release was published on Jan. 26, 2005. As the helicopter crash that killed Kobe Bryant happened on the 15th anniversary of the crash that killed 30 Marines, it's easy to see how some people may have misread this date.  Moreover, it seems that some news publications published recent stories that didn't clearly state that the military helicopter crash occurred 15 years ago. While the headline for News-Gazette in the screenshot below refers to a "day in history" piece, for example, the headlines from KWKT and KTUU presented the incident as a recent development.    KWKT and KTUU have since deleted their stories, and we were unable to find any archived versions of these pages.  To sum up: On Jan. 26, 2005, 30 Marines and a sailor were killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq. Fifteen years later, this story recirculated on social media in the wake of another fatal helicopter crash. The text of the original Navy news release appears below: original Navy news release Thirty Marines and one Sailor from the 1st Marine Division and the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing of the I Marine Expeditionary Force died Jan. 26 when their CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter crashed near Ar Rutbah in the Al Anbar Province while conducting security and stabilization operations. All Marines, Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen of the I Marine Expeditionary Force mourn the tragic loss of our brothers in arms. A recovery team is at the crash site, and the cause of the crash is currently under investigation. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending next of kin notification. "While we mourn the loss of these heroes, we will honor their sacrifice by continuing our mission to bring democracy to the people of Iraq," said Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commanding general, I Marine Expeditionary Force. "To the families of these brave men, our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to you at this most difficult of times." US Navy.  "30 Marines, 1 Sailor Die in Helicopter Crash."
  26 January 2005. Chappell, Bill.  "What We Know: The Helicopter Crash That Killed Kobe Bryant And 8 Others."
  NPR.  27 January 2020.