Category: Fact Check

  • Fact Check: ICE gives some migrants smartphones to track them, not for personal use

    Florida state Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, invoked a misleading claim about immigrants before the Senate approved new rules to prohibit homeless people from setting up camps in public spaces without state permission.

    The bill prohibits counties and municipalities from allowing public camping or sleeping on public property without permission. The bill also requires local governments to post information on their website on campsite locations — shelters with restrooms and running water — and how people can get permits to stay overnight in specific public places. 

    On March 4, before the bill passed the Senate, Sen. Shevrin Jones, D-Miami Gardens, asked Martin how homeless people can access that information if they lack laptops or smartphones.

    Martin replied that homeless people have access to information as others do and that he had seen them in downtown Fort Myers charging their cellphones on power strips. He then invoked migrants crossing the southern U.S. border.

    “This is the post-Obama phone era, this is the era where people are given smartphones when they cross the border and enter our country,” Martin said. “So, there’s a tremendous amount of information that everybody has, but of course not everybody has a cellphone, not everyone has the ability to look up that information on a website.” 

    Is he right that people who cross the border get smartphones?

    PolitiFact called and emailed Martin’s office but got no response. 

    Since 2018, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement gives smartphones or tablet computers to some immigrants who are released from federal custody after entering the country illegally and are awaiting decisions on their immigration cases. 

    The devices have the SmartLINK application, developed by BI Inc., a subsidiary of the GEO Group, a private prison company. This app lets officials track the migrants’ location. 

    Mike Alvarez, an ICE spokesperson, told PolitiFact that not all migrants are given a smartphone or a tablet for monitoring — the government gives them one only if they don’t have one at the time they’re enrolled in Alternatives to Detention programs. 

    The devices’ features are limited, people can use it only for the SmartLINK application, for emergency 911 calls and to communicate with immigration officials. They cannot access the internet.

    The app requires that people check in with immigration officials by uploading a selfie or answering a call from their case manager, according to The Associated Press.

    The devices also must be returned to ICE if the participants get a personal smartphone, are monitored instead through a GPS-device such as an ankle bracelet or a wrist-worn technology (such as a smartwatch that’s enabled only for monitoring), or have their case resolved.

    We’ve previously fact-checked similar claims, including from Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, that migrants get free cellphones. But this claim needs context.

    Our ruling

    Martin said, “This is the era where people are given smartphones when they cross the border and enter our country.”

    Some people may get smartphones when they cross the U.S. border, but Martin omits important context. These smartphones are not for personal use, but for tracking immigrants. The phones cannot be used to browse information online, post on social media or call friends or family. 

    We rate Martin’s claim Half True.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: The U.S. Code doesn’t say traitors would be publicly hanged at high noon

    Editor’s note: This story contains graphic descriptions.

    It’s been 88 years since the last government-sponsored execution unfolded in the U.S. in a public space, open to anyone who wanted to attend.

    But some social media users are claiming traitors to the country could still suffer this gruesome fate of public execution.

    “The following is the U.S. penalty for treason,” read the text in a March 3 Instagram video before showing a card that read: 

    “Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381, which says ‘When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead.”

    (Screenshot from Instagram)

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    We asked several legal experts about this claim; four of them responded and found it baseless. Stuart Banner, death penalty historian and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles; Carlton Larson, University of California, Davis law professor who specializes in the law of treason; and Eugene Volokh, who’s also a UCLA law professor, told PolitiFact they’ve never heard of such a statute.

    “It’s pure invention,” said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor.

    Here’s what Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381 actually says:

    “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

    We also looked at the historical versions of the criminal procedure for treason. The 1925 version of the U.S. Code stipulated the same penalties, plus one other: the person’s real and personal property would be levied on and collected. The 1934, 1940, 1946 versions outlined the same penalties. 

    The collection penalty was omitted in the 1952 version because it was “obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.”

    Proceeding versions (1958, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988) were mostly identical to the current statute, save for minor wording changes.

    Although U.S. Code stipulates the death penalty as a punishment for treason, traitors wouldn’t be taken to and hanged at the “nearest busy intersection.” Public executions, described in one law journal article as those conducted in the “public squares or commons,” have been outlawed in all states. 

    States started to prohibit public executions in the 1830s. PolitiFact obtained a copy of a statute passed by the New York legislature in 1835, which restricted executions to the county prison and specified the people who can attend.

    Kentucky was the last state to ban public executions. In August 1936, the Daviess County sheriff oversaw the public hanging of Rainey Bethea, a Black man who was convicted of raping a white woman. More than 20,000 people attended, according to The New York Times. Eighteen months later, the state’s governor banned public executions.

    How the Constitution defines treason

    Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Article III, Section 3 says:

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    This crime is rarely prosecuted. Volokh said of the Instagram’s post claim, “It is not enough to not timely protect and defend the Constitution, or to break one’s oath. To be guilty, one has to actually levy war against the U.S., or intentionally assist their enemies.”

    According to the Congressional Research Service’s Constitution Annotated, the framers defined treason that way to “prevent the politically powerful from escalating ordinary partisan disputes into capital charges of treason.”

    “‘Capital felony treason’ is gibberish, since the Constitution (and English law) distinguished treason from felony more broadly (very different punishments),” Larson said. “And ‘fail to timely move to protect and defend’ is devoid of any substantive content.”

    We rate the claim that people convicted of treason would be “taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead” False.

    PolitiFact News Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Why do so many Americans think the economy is bad when the data says otherwise?

    Talk about a disconnect.

    Unemployment is near record lows. Job creation is robust. The economy is growing, driven by healthy consumer spending. And the stock market has hit record highs.

    Yet surveys show that Americans are disgusted with the economy. And President Joe Biden, seeking reelection in November, is feeling the public’s agitation. 

    Biden has struggled to convince voters that the economy is strong — or that he deserves any credit for his economic stewardship.

    In a February Marquette Law School poll, 35% of national respondents said the economy was “excellent” or “good,” compared with 65% who said it was “not so good” or “poor.”

    A February Monmouth University poll primed respondents with several metrics showing a strong economy — including “lower unemployment, higher productivity and a high Dow Jones average” — before asking whether their family had benefited. 

    But sentiments stayed dour. Only 33% told the pollster their family had benefited either “a great deal” or “some” from the “economic upturn,” compared with 64% who said they had benefited “not much” or “not at all.”

    Voters are giving Donald Trump — who’s seeking to return to the White House — more love on the economy than they’re giving Biden. In a late February-early March CBS News poll, almost two-thirds of respondents nationally said the economy was good under Trump, while 39% said the same of today’s economy under Biden.

    Why are Americans so glum about an economy that is strong on the numbers?

    It seems inflation and high interest rates are blotting out every other metric for the average American, combined with self-reinforcing doom loops of media coverage and partisan biases. 

    Americans have different statistics top of mind

    The biggest albatross for Biden’s economy is inflation. 

    Year-over-year inflation peaked around 9% — a four-decade high — in summer 2022. It has fallen to about 3% in recent months, closer to the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Economists generally attribute the peak inflation to supply chain problems that emerged during the pandemic; this was exacerbated by fiscal stimulus legislation signed by Biden shortly after he took office.

    Americans “want these prices to be back where they were before the pandemic,” Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook said in a November speech at Duke University.

    The problem is that, by nature, inflation doesn’t act that way. When inflation slows, as it has for a year and a half, it doesn’t produce lower prices. Rather, prices climb more slowly, allowing wage increases to catch up.

    Americans have noticed that food prices are up 20% on Biden’s watch.

    “Most people shop for groceries every week, making those prices particularly salient,” A. Lee Hannah, a Wright State University political scientist who has written about consumers’ views of the economy, told PolitiFact.

    Another weekly ritual is a trip to the gas station. Although gasoline prices have fallen substantially from their summer 2022 peak, they remain about 30% higher than when Biden took office.

    Two long-running consumer confidence measures illustrate inflation’s unique impact on public sentiment about the economy.

    The University of Michigan produces one survey. Although this monthly metric has rebounded over the past year, the rating under Biden remains lower than it was for four of the past five presidents at the same point in their tenures.

    For more than two years through December 2023, the survey’s consumer sentiment score was lower than it was at April 2020 — a startling finding, given that in April 2020 the unemployment rate was 13.2% and Americans were facing the uncertainty of a once-a-century pandemic.

    The Conference Board, a business membership and research organization, conducts another monthly consumer confidence survey. By this gauge, consumer sentiment is now higher than it was under three of the previous four presidents at this point in their tenures. 

    There’s a straightforward explanation: The surveys ask different questions. 

    The University of Michigan survey is more sensitive to inflation, and the Conference Board’s measure tends to reflect labor market conditions, such as today’s low unemployment rate and rapid job creation.

    The government’s primary cure for inflation is raising interest rates, which is causing a different kind of consumer heartburn.

    Interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve — which have largely succeeded in reducing inflation — have also sent mortgage and credit card rates higher, squeezing borrowers and homebuyers, especially those who are entering the housing market for the first time.

    A significant number of Americans, Hannah said, “are gainfully employed, have seen their wages rise, and are enjoying cheaper gas — but they remain pessimistic because some of these larger purchases like homes or cars seem unattainable right now.”

    Not everyone experiences the economy the same way

    Compounding Biden’s challenge is that, adjusted for inflation, wages haven’t quite caught up to price growth. 

    Given current trends, inflation-adjusted wages should soon arrive back at the purchasing power they had when Biden was inaugurated. Still, this means that Americans have felt like they’ve been falling behind on prices for three full years under Biden.

    Low-income Americans feel this pain the most, because a higher percentage of their income is taken up by food, gasoline and other necessities with prices that inflation has affected most.

    The resumption of federal student loan payments in late 2023 might also be contributing to some Americans feeling less well-off, economists said.

    “Consumers’ income growth has finally started to offset inflation, but while the trend is good, there’s still a bit of ground to cover for people’s purchasing power to get back its longer-run trend,” said Sasha Indarte, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

    The media has been increasingly negative about the economy

    Many Americans pay little attention to broad economic statistics, which leads to misconceptions, economists said. A December Bankrate survey found that about six of 10 respondents said the U.S. economy was in a recession — when a recession was never declared. A Financial Times survey found that 90% of respondents said prices have risen faster than wages over the past year, even though the opposite is true.

    If news organizations are trying to correct these misconceptions, the message isn’t getting through, said Aaron Sojourner, a senior researcher at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    In a January analysis, Sojourner and a co-author used a San Francisco Federal Reserve database that rates whether economic news coverage is tonally positive or negative. The analysis found that since 2018, economic news coverage has grown increasingly negative — and “increasingly unmoored from economic fundamentals.” 

    Sojourner has found a widening gap during that period between people who believed their local economy was “good” or “excellent” and people who felt similarly about the national economy.

    “Because people rely more on news to understand the national economy than their local economy or their personal finances, this provides some evidence that negative news sentiment plays a role,” Sojourner told PolitiFact.

    One example of a media mismatch is that despite many recent stories about how young people have given up on ever owning a home, the homeownership rate for young people is higher today than it was in 2016, said Dean Baker, co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research.

    Baker said recent news coverage also misses other economic positives.

    “I have seen virtually zero mention of the 17 million additional people who are able to work from home, saving thousands of dollars in commuting-related expenses and hundreds of hours spent commuting,” Baker added. “Almost no one is familiar with the surveys of workplace satisfaction, which report record highs.”

    Partisanship is increasingly shaping Americans’ assessments of the economy

    Responses to surveys have become increasingly driven by partisanship. 

    In the February Monmouth poll, 83% of Republicans said they had benefited “not much” or “not at all” from the economy, compared with 38% of Democrats who said they hadn’t benefited much. Independents were almost as negative as Republicans, with 72% saying they hadn’t benefited much.

    These sentiments can flip without any change in economic fundamentals — only a change in political party. 

    Republican sentiment surged and Democratic sentiment “plunged between November 2016 and January 2017, and vice versa in 2020-2021” — when the party controlling the White House switched parties, Joanne W. Hsu, consumer surveys director at the University of Michigan, wrote of her survey results.  

    Beyond dollars-and-cents metrics, the world is awash in strife, with wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the U.S. is riven by culture-war controversies, all juiced by an unceasing flow of charged rhetoric on social media. It would be a surprise if none of this seeped into perceptions of the economy.

    Then again, Yahoo Finance senior columnist Rick Newman wrote in March, “if ‘poor’ is the American public’s baseline understanding of the economy when things are pretty good, we’re going to need some new terminology to describe what’s going to happen when another recession strikes, which is inevitable.”



    Source

  • Fact Check: Fact check: Elon Musk’s claim that Democrats are avoiding deportations to win elections is False.

    Following news reports about immigrants in the U.S. illegally suspected in violent attacks in New York City and Georgia, Elon Musk accused Democrats of avoiding deportation to win at the ballot box.

    “Dems won’t deport, because every illegal is a highly likely vote at some point,” Musk wrote on X Feb. 26. “That simple incentive explains what seems to be insane behavior.”

    Musk’s post also referred to immigrants illegally in the U.S. who are accused of assaulting New York City police officers. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said that the reported migrants who were recorded on video assaulting police should be deported. 

    Musk’s post shared another person’s X post about the murder of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old University of Georgia nursing student who was killed Feb. 22 while on a run. Authorities charged Jose Ibarra, a 26-year-old from Venezuela, with the murder.  

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection stopped Ibarra when he illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in September 2022, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Ibarra was paroled in, allowing him to be released into the U.S. to await further immigration proceedings.

    The Nashville Tea Party, a conservative group, posted Musk’s statement on Instagram about a week later. 

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    Musk has repeatedly posted similar statements about Democrats “importing voters” or illegal immigrants and voters.

    These statements by Musk — and similar ones by former President Donald Trump and J,D, Vance, now a Republican U.S. Senator from Ohio — are wrong.

    We contacted X’s press team asking for Musk’s evidence and received an automated response: “Busy now, please check back later.”

    Democratic presidents have removed, returned or expelled millions of people 

    Presidents, including Democrats, have removed and returned immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally for years, as federal government data shows.

    David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Musk’s statement is “ludicrously untrue.”

    Bier pointed to data from the Department of Homeland Security showing that Biden and former Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have returned, removed or expelled millions of people.

    During each of his terms, Obama removed and returned more people than Trump did. 

    There have been more than 3.6 million removals, returns and expulsions from February 2021, Biden’s first month in office, to September 2023, based on Department of Homeland Security estimates.

    Voting by immigrants in the U.S. illegally carries serious risks

    Federal law requires U.S. citizenship to vote in national elections, and would-be voters sign a form that attests under penalty of perjury that they are citizens when they register to vote. States can check databases to verify voters’ citizenship. 

    Voting by noncitizens carries high risks that include deportation or incarceration.

    There are incidents of noncitizens voting in elections, but they are sporadic among millions of votes cast in federal elections. Immigrants who cross the border illegally are typically looking for jobs and many are escaping poverty or crime — most don’t want to risk drawing government authorities’ attention by casting a ballot.

    “There is a massive economic incentive to migrate here illegally,” Bier wrote on X. “There’s a massive economic disincentive to vote illegally.”

    As we explained in a recent fact-check of Trump, fraudulent voter registration or voting by noncitizens often results from misunderstandings or errors. For example, some noncitizens accidentally register to vote when applying for a driver’s license. But the number of people who fall into this category is “minuscule,” Rutgers University political science professor Lorraine Minnite previously told us. 

    In 2020, federal prosecutors charged 19 people in North Carolina with voter fraud after they cast ballots mostly in the 2016 election. Sixteen people pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors related to voting as a noncitizen; three cases were dismissed. 

    That was a big case, but more than 4.5 million people in North Carolina voted in the 2016 presidential election.

    It takes years for immigrants to gain the right to vote.

    It takes several years for an immigrant to become a citizen and gain voting rights.

    “It takes on average five years in green card status before a person can become a U.S. citizen, so no one would instantly gain the right to vote,” Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesperson for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, previously told PolitiFact.

    Not all immigrants who become citizens will vote. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in the 2022 election, native-born citizen voter turnout was 53.4%, exceeding the 41.4% turnout of naturalized citizens.

    There is some evidence that immigrants lean left, but there are variations depending on their backgrounds and where they live. 

    A 2023 national poll by KFF and the Los Angeles Times found that 37% of naturalized citizens say the Democratic Party represents their views better than the Republican party while 21% say the Republican Party does. But large shares of poll respondents leaned toward neither party. 

    But there is no guarantee that immigrants who become citizens in the future will vote for Democrats.

    Bier told us that “there is zero evidence that immigration has harmed Republican Party prospects.” Congressional Republicans have performed much better during periods when the immigrant share of the population is high, Bier wrote in 2019.

    Our ruling

    Musk said Democrats don’t deport immigrants in the U.S. illegally “because every illegal is a highly likely vote at some point.”

    Musk provided no evidence to support his statement about deportation or voting. The Biden administration, and previous Democratic administrations, have deported millions of immigrants.

    Immigrants cannot vote until they become citizens, a process that takes several years.

    We rate this statement False.

    RELATED: Trump’s claim that millions of immigrants are signing up to vote illegally is Pants on Fire!



    Source

  • Fact Check: Can social media platform outages impact U.S. elections? Not likely, experts say

    It’s Election Day in November 2024. Across the U.S., voters are heading to the polls. And major social media platforms are not working. 

    The scenario could alarm voters and draw news organizations’ attention. But would it affect voting? 

    A similar incident played out March 5, when Meta platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Threads stopped working worldwide for about two hours. The outages happened on Super Tuesday, when voters in 16 states and one territory were casting their ballots in the presidential primary. 

    DownDetector, a website that tracks outages using methods including user-submitted reports, said that more than 500,000 Facebook outages and 79,000 Instagram outages were reported around 10:30 a.m Eastern Time. 

    The issue appeared to be resolved and access restored within a few hours.

    X users speculated that the outages were linked to the election, nefarious — and possibly a trial run for a bigger incident in November. 

    “All major socials went down and regained at almost the exact same time,” read one X post with more than 39,000 views as of March 5. “#cyberattack or practice run for the 2024 election? It is no coincidence that this happened on Super Tuesday, because there are no coincidences.”

    Roger Stone, a Republican political consultant in Florida who advised former President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, suggested the outage might have benefitted Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley. 

    “Facebook and Instagram — two of the most powerful communication tools for grassroots politics in America — suddenly stops working on #SuperTuesday, while all of Haley’s ads in print, radio, and television remain intact,” Stone wrote. “How convenient.” 

    Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, dropped out of the presidential race the next day. During the primary season, the Trump campaign or his super political action committee backers have bought radio ads, television spots and text message and direct mail advertising.

    Another X post that racked up more than 1.7 million views questioned whether the outages were a “practice run for November,” when the general election will take place.

    Federal officials told reporters on Super Tuesday that they knew of no link between the outage and that day’s elections.

    Local and state election officials in Alabama, California, Colorado, North Carolina and Texas told us that the Meta outages did not affect voting.

    Many election officials told us that they communicate with voters on their websites or by opt-in text messages and emails. In North Carolina, officials sent an emergency robocall to correct misinformation about voting instructions.

    Super Tuesday voters leave a polling location Tuesday, March 5, 2024, in Mount Holly, N.C. (AP)

    What caused Meta platform outages on Super Tuesday?

    White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters during a March 5 press briefing that the White House was “not aware of any specific malicious cyberactivity,” she said. “Or any specific nexus as it relates to today’s election.”

    A U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency official made a similar statement in a briefing with reporters.

    Meta spokesperson Andy Stone posted on X that “a technical issue caused people to have difficulty accessing some of our services.” PolitiFact contacted Meta for additional details and was directed to Stone’s statement. (PolitiFact has a fact-checking partnership with Meta.

    (Clip from YouTube.)

    Elections officials and experts said the outages did not impact voting

    Many local and state election officials use multiple social media platforms to communicate with voters and the media on election days. Government officials post information about voting hours, turnout, the counting process and voter problems or misinformation. Some are playful – Harris Votes in Texas posted a video of what voting looks like during rodeo season (in cowboy boots, of course.)

    But social media is not the only way election officials communicate with voters. Local elections offices typically have websites where information is posted, such as voting site locations.

    Derek Bowens, Durham County, North Carolina’s elections director, told PolitiFact that the Meta outages didn’t affect Super Tuesday voting. Even if all social media platforms went down on Election Day, Durham County has a notification system through its emergency management department that it could use to send voting updates to the public. 

    “There is always a backup to the backup,” Bowens said. 

    Justin D. Grantham, clerk and recorder in Fremont County, Colorado, said if all social media platforms were disrupted for all of Election Day, clerks would use TV and radio to deliver messages to voters.

    “It would change our tactics, but not our communication with our constituents,” Grantham said.

    Dressed as Superman and holding a “Vote!” flag, artist David Alcantar jogs past a polling site, March 5, 2024, in San Antonio. The flag and costume are part of an art project to encourage voting. (AP)

    Mara Suttmann-Lea, a Connecticut College assistant professor of politics, wrote in a 2021 paper that county election websites are “by far the most commonly available resource for voters across jurisdictions.” 

    The social media outages probably affected campaigns’ digital ads, said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, a group advocating for voting access. And the secretary of state ran digital ads letting people know what types of identification they needed to vote. 

    “A number of us who work on voting rights talked about how we ran into so many people yesterday while shopping for groceries or picking up kids at school who had no idea it was Election Day,” Gutierrez said. “The outage may have prevented some people from hearing about the election or kept people from getting reminders to go vote, but it’s hard to imagine it had any significant impact.”

    Lillian Govus, spokesperson for North Carolina’s Buncombe County, said primary turnout was higher than in 2020, so the county has no indication that the outage impacted access.

    “At the end of the day, if social media or power went down, we’d vote exactly like I did when I voted for the first time in 1998: on a ballot machine that used a touchscreen for selections and without any social media platform competing for my attention,” Govus said.

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about elections



    Source

  • Fact Check: Trump says 82% says Americans think 2020 election was “rigged.” Polls, polling executives disagree

    GREENSBORO — Former President Donald Trump told his North Carolina supporters during a campaign stop that he’s not the only one who believes the 2020 presidential election was rigged against him.

    “Eighty-two percent of the country understands that it was a rigged election,” Trump said March 2 during a rally at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex. “You can’t have a country with that. A poll came out: 82%. But they go after the people — they don’t go after the people that rig the election, they go after the people (that are) looking.”

    First, the 2020 election was not rigged and numerous reviews have confirmed that President Joe Biden won 51% of the vote. States certified the results. Congress accepted the results. Trump and his allies lost more than 60 lawsuits claiming otherwise. A group of conservatives, including former federal judges, examined every fraud and miscount claim by Trump and concluded that they “failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results.” 

    Still, Trump has only amplified this false claim. Could he be right that now 82% of Americans are buying his line?

    We asked members of Trump’s campaign team about the 82% figure in Greensboro, but received no response. We searched the internet for a survey with that number from a credible polling company, but couldn’t find one. It reminded us of a 2022 check we did on a claim that 65% of Americans doubted the 2020 election, but we found that one to be False. Other media outlets have also failed to substantiate his recent 82% figure.

    So, we asked polling experts across the nation: Is there any truth to Trump’s claim that up to 82% of Americans believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged?

    Their answer: No.

    Dave McLennan, director of the Meredith Poll at Meredith College in Raleigh said although several polls ask respondents whether the 2020 election was fair and legitimate, none of them show that a majority of Americans think that contest was fraudulent, “much less 82%, as Trump claims.

    “Even if you look at Republicans, the percentage that claim that the election was stolen is not as high as Trump claims,” McLennan said in an email.

    Available data shows that Trump’s claim is “absurd,” Alexander Theodoridis, co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an email. 

    A January Umass Amherst Poll found that 30% of respondents believed Biden’s win was illegitimate. 

    Theodoridis noted that even among former Republican members of Congress — who were involved in government and could access detailed information about elections — more than 80% said Biden’s victory was legitimate.

    Polling groups have surveyed Americans multiple times about the 2020 presidential election’s legitimacy  and none of their findings support Trump’s claim. Here’s a smattering of poll findings since we last examined this issue.

    • A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll from December found that 36% of respondents viewed Biden’s win as illegitimate. 

    • An August poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 70% of respondents believed Biden was legitimately elected. Among Republicans, the number was 57%. 

    • A June Monmouth University poll found that 30% of respondents believe Biden won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Among Republicans, the number was 68% — still lower than Trump claimed. That result “has been a nearly constant percentage in Monmouth’s polling since the November 2020 election,” Monmouth noted in its report. 

    • An early 2022 Axios-SurveyMonkey poll found that 55% respondents believed Biden won legitimately. SurveyMonkey and the AP-NORC polls have lower credibility ratings than Monmouth and The Washington Post with FiveThirtyEight.com, which analyzes polling methods.

    Trump may have been referring to a 2021 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, a public opinion research firm. 

    Thirty-one percent of the poll’s respondents said they believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump — but the number was much higher for respondents who consumed conservative media. Among Republicans who claimed they trust Fox News more than any other outlet, 82% said they believed the election was stolen. 

    Polling results consistently show a partisan divide over the election’s legitimacy, said Alejandra Campos, a Latino Studies professor in the University of Arkansas’ political science department. Still, “the available data does not support the claim that a majority of Americans thought the 2020 election was rigged,” Campos said.

    Our ruling

    Trump said, “82% of the country understands that it was a rigged election.”

    We couldn’t find any credible poll — or any group of polls — with results that support Trump’s claim. His campaign also produced no evidence to support it.

    Polling continues to show that most Americans believe the 2020 election was legitimate. 

    We rate Trump’s claim False.

    WRAL state government reporter Will Doran contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Fact Check: ¿Hay un aumento de migración de ‘hombres en edad militar’ de China?

    Tras el aumento del número de inmigrantes chinos cruzando la frontera sur de Estados Unidos, el congresista republicano de Florida Mario Díaz-Balart, el expresidente Donald Trump y otros republicanos han dicho que los que están llegando son “hombres de edad militar” y que esto es alarmante.

    “Casi 9 millones de encuentros ilegales a nivel nacional bajo la crisis fronteriza de Biden”, dijo Díaz-Balart en una publicación en X el 4 de marzo. “Entre los que aprovechan el caos se encuentran hombres de edad militar de China comunista, representando una amenaza para nuestra seguridad nacional”.

    Trump en una entrevista con Fox News en febrero dijo que están llegando hombres entre 18 y 25 años de edad y sugirió que su llegada es dirigida por el Partido Comunista de China.

    El presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, el republicano Mike Johnson de Luisiana, en un discurso en el hemiciclo describió a los inmigrantes como “de edad militar” y dijo que no representaban familias buscando refugio y asilo.

    Pero esto es engañoso. La Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza de Estados Unidos (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) no publica datos específicos sobre la edad o el género de los inmigrantes que llegan a la frontera. También, la frase “de edad militar” significa diferentes cosas en diferentes países.

    No encontramos pruebas, como noticias o datos gubernamentales, que demuestren que los inmigrantes chinos llegan a Estados Unidos por orden del ejército chino.

    Los inmigrantes chinos llegan a Estados Unidos en busca de trabajo y libertad, las mismas fuerzas que impulsan a otros inmigrantes que vienen a Estados Unidos de otras partes del mundo. Abogados y activistas de inmigración nos dijeron que una parte significativa son hombres jóvenes, pero eso no es inusual en cualquier grupo de inmigrantes.

    A pesar del aumento del número de inmigrantes chinos en la frontera, estos siguen representando una pequeña parte de todos los encuentros fronterizos, según los datos de inmigración. Los inmigrantes de países latinoamericanos, como Venezuela y México, han protagonizado muchos más encuentros con las autoridades fronterizas.

    La afirmación falsa de que los inmigrantes chinos equivalen a una invasión ha circulado por redes sociales desde al menos el año pasado.

    El número de inmigrantes chinos en la frontera estadounidense aumentó en 2023

    Los encuentros con inmigrantes chinos en las fronteras de EE.UU. han aumentado de forma constante en los últimos tres años, pero se dispararon en el año fiscal 2023, el período de 12 meses que terminó en septiembre. Ese año, las autoridades fronterizas se encontraron con inmigrantes chinos más de 52,000 veces en las fronteras estadounidenses. 

    En cada uno de los tres años anteriores, la cifra anual fue de menos de 30,000. En los cuatro primeros meses del año fiscal 2024, se han producido 29,800 encuentros con inmigrantes chinos, superando el total del año fiscal 2022.

    La mayoría de los inmigrantes chinos que llegan a la frontera sur son adultos que viajan solos, según los datos de CBP. Sin embargo, los datos no revelan la edad ni el género de las personas detenidas en la frontera. La agencia provee datos sobre las detenciones de adultos que llegan solos, familias con niños y niños que vienen solos.

    The Associated Press informó que los inmigrantes chinos vuelan a Ecuador como punto de partida de sus viajes a Estados Unidos porque Ecuador no exige visa. Gastan miles de dólares en el viaje y luego cruzan el Tapón de Darién, que conecta Colombia con Panamá.

    Xiaosheng Huang, abogado de inmigración en Las Vegas que representa mayormente a inmigrantes chinos, dijo que los inmigrantes que acuden a su bufete mayormente son varones de 25 a 40 años porque “son lo bastante fuertes para afrontar los riesgos del camino”. 

    Los jóvenes también son hábiles en el uso de redes sociales para encontrar información sobre cómo, cuándo y dónde cruzar la frontera sur de Estados Unidos. 

    Chinese for Affirmative Action, un grupo con sede en California desde hace décadas que protege los derechos civiles y políticos de personas chino estadounidense, habló con unos 100 inmigrantes chinos en un reciente viaje a la frontera, dijo su portavoz Sin Yen Ling. Según la organización, el 81.3% de los migrantes con los que hablaron eran hombres, y la mayoría tenían entre 35 y 54 años. El personal también reportó haber hablado con chinos que emigraron con abuelos e hijos.

    Ling considera que la expresión “hombres en edad militar” es un alarmismo. “Edad militar” significa cosas diferentes en distintos países, con distintos requisitos para el servicio militar. En China, el servicio militar no es obligatorio. Los hombres chinos que cruzan la frontera carecen típicamente de formación militar formal, dijo Ling, en comparación a gente de países donde se exige el servicio militar.

    La economía y la libertad han impulsado la inmigración

    Abogados y defensores de la inmigración dicen que muchos factores han impulsado a chinos a emigrar a Estados Unidos. 

    Ling apunta a la economía. La tasa de desempleo entre los jóvenes chinos de 16 a 24 años alcanzó el 21.3% en junio; después de eso, el gobierno dejó de publicar las cifras.

    Las recientes medidas del presidente de China Xi Jinping contra sectores como el tecnológico, el inmobiliario y el educativo, en los que los jóvenes han buscado tradicionalmente trabajo, han contribuido a la elevada tasa de desempleo, afirmó Ling.

    El producto interior bruto de China creció en 2023, pero ha venido mostrando signos de tensión.

    Las políticas estrictas y los cierres durante la pandemia de COVID-19 también impulsaron la emigración cuando China suavizó sus restricciones, lo que ocurrió más tarde que en la mayoría de otros países.

    Las tasas de concesión de asilo y la imposibilidad de deportar pueden incentivar la inmigración

    La disminución de las vías legales para que los chinos emigren a EE.UU., las altas tasas de concesión de asilo a inmigrantes chinos y la imposibilidad de ser deportados de EE.UU. también contribuyen probablemente al aumento de la emigración china.

    El número de visas estadounidenses expedidas a ciudadanos chinos ha disminuido desde 2015, pero se desplomó durante la pandemia de COVID-19. El número de visas ha aumentado en los últimos años, pero aún no alcanza los niveles anteriores a la pandemia. Esto se debe en parte a las tensas relaciones diplomáticas entre Estados Unidos y China, y deja el cruce de la frontera sur en busca de asilo como una de las opciones más factibles para los migrantes chinos.

    Según datos del Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse de la Universidad de Syracuse, los chinos tienen más éxito obteniendo asilo en Estados Unidos que los ciudadanos de otros países.

    Incluso cuando se les niega el asilo, el gobierno estadounidense no puede deportarlos fácilmente, porque China no acepta a sus ciudadanos que son deportados de Estados Unidos. Esto puede ser otro incentivo para la inmigración china, ya que las autoridades de inmigración estadounidenses no pueden detener indefinidamente a las personas y, por tanto, deben liberarlas en Estados Unidos cuando no puedan ser devueltas a sus países de origen.

    “Las devoluciones efectivas son la piedra angular de un sistema migratorio funcional y creíble”, escribió en diciembre de 2022 el Migration Policy Institute, entidad no partidista. “Si los migrantes irregulares enfrentan poco riesgo de deportación, tienen menos razones para cumplir con las órdenes de irse voluntariamente”.

    Aun así, no hay pruebas de que el repunte de la migración china en la frontera se deba a una directiva del Partido Comunista Chino. Y “no hay nada inusual en que los migrantes de cualquier país estén en ‘edad militar’”, dijo a PolitiFact en 2023 Adam Isacson, director de supervisión de defensa de Washington Office on Latin America, un grupo que aboga por los derechos humanos en las Américas. Isacson también dijo que no es inusual que la gente huya de la persecución de países que tienen malas relaciones con Estados Unidos. 

    Clayton Dube, investigador principal del Instituto EE.UU.-China de la Universidad del Sur de California, dijo que no ha visto ninguna prueba de que los emigrantes chinos vengan a EE.UU. “motivados por otra cosa que no sea el deseo individual de forjarse una nueva vida en EE.UU.”

    Una versión de este artículo originalmente fue escrito en inglés y traducido por Marta Campabadal Graus.

    Read a version of this check in English.

    Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.


    Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.



    Source

  • Hunter Biden’s Testimony in Context

    Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

    During a lengthy interview with House investigators on Feb. 28, Hunter Biden repeatedly insisted that his father was never involved in any of his businesses.

    A transcript of the interview released the following day by the House Oversight and Accountability and Judiciary committees, which are conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, showed that Hunter Biden commented on numerous aspects of his business activities that Republicans have pointed to as evidence that his father was improperly involved in or benefited from those foreign business deals.

    Over the course of more than six hours of testimony, Hunter Biden said that was not the case.

    Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, departs a House Oversight Committee meeting at Capitol Hill on Jan.10 in Washington, D.C. Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images.

    “I am here today to provide the committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business, not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions, domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist, never,” Hunter Biden said in an opening statement.

    “For more than a year, your committees have hunted me in your partisan political pursuit of my dad,” he said. “You have trafficked in innuendo, distortion, and sensationalism, all the while ignoring the clear and convincing evidence staring you in the face: You do not have evidence to support the baseless and MAGA-motivated conspiracies about my father because there isn’t any.”

    As we have written, Republicans haven’t been able to establish that Joe Biden benefited from his family’s business dealings or used his position as vice president to aid those deals. 

    In the following, we will lay out some of the claims made by Republicans about Hunter Biden’s businesses and how they may have intersected with his father, and Hunter Biden’s response to those claims. Click on any one of the prompts to see a full discussion of that point.

    Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Burisma board?

    Hunter Biden served as a board member of Burisma Holdings Ltd., one of the biggest private oil and gas companies in Ukraine, from May 2014 to April 2019, a position that he says paid him about $65,000 per month.

    Republicans have pointed to the testimony of Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Devon Archer, who described the “illusion of access” to Joe Biden as part of the “brand” that Hunter Biden provided. Archer testified that he thought Burisma would have gone out of business if not for people being “intimidated to mess with them” legally, due to the company’s association with the Biden brand.

    In an ABC News interview in October 2019, Hunter Biden was asked if he thought he would have been invited to serve on the Burisma board if his name wasn’t Biden. “Probably not,” he said.

    But in his testimony on Feb. 28, Biden defiantly responded to Republicans on the committee who said “there’s no way that I should’ve been serving on the board of Burisma.” He said, “I’d put my resume up against any one of you, in terms of my responsibility.”

    “I don’t know anybody that was — at that time that was teaching the No. 1-rated course at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service in the master’s program in terms of foreign policy and advocacy,” Biden said. “I literally was on 17 — like, 12 different boards. I only listed like, you know, 10 of them. And so I had an enormous amount of reasons to be on it.”

    Biden said he was “always cognizant of the fact” that some companies “may have an ulterior notion” for hiring him, and “it’s my job to be able to balance that and to create boundaries.”

    As for “the brand” described by Archer, Biden said, “The brand is this: is my dad, with the support of his family — in particular, my mom; my Aunt Valerie, who’s run every one of his campaigns; my grandparents; everyone — it’s their legacy. Primarily, the name ‘Biden’ is my dad’s legacy. And he passes it down to me and, when my brother was alive, my brother, my sister, now to my children. It’s our responsibility to not screw that up. It’s to live to what I think is the person that I hold in the highest regard of any human I’ve ever met in my life, is my dad.”

    Biden was then asked if it was fair to say that Burisma only wanted him on the board because his father was vice president.

    “No, I don’t think that it’s fair,” Biden said. “I really don’t. I really don’t think that it’s fair to say that — for that to be the entire sentence.”

    Biden called Burisma “a bulwark against Russian aggression” and said he was convinced to join the board by the president of Poland, who told him that that the Biden name brought “a symbol of freedom and democracy and standing up for the Ukrainians’ desire for a democratic state against Vladimir Putin.” Biden said he “was completely comfortable with that.”

    What exactly did Hunter Biden do for Burisma?

    For months, Republicans have been asking a “fundamental question” about Hunter Biden, in the words of Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan: “What was the business you guys were in?”

    The implied answer, as Republican Rep. Jason Smith said in a Fox Business interview on Nov. 29, was that Biden was hired “just for access to his father.”

    The question arose in Biden’s testimony on Feb. 28.

    “What types of services did you provide on the board?” Biden was asked by an unidentified representative for Republicans on the committee. “I mean, you were making a million a year [at] Burisma. What were you doing for that million?”

    Biden said it was actually not a million dollars a year — at his estimate of $65,000 per month, that comes to about $780,000 per year. He said he was “the head of the corporate governance. And my responsibilities were like any other board member, to attend board meetings, to be aware of what the management was doing to try to strive for, you know, accountability, transparency, openness in terms of the reporting, to go through the financials and make certain that the financials were certified by a CPA. The whole idea was that it was a private company that was operating in Ukraine for a very long period of time in that part of the world, which doesn’t have the same high standards that the West does. And that was my goal in trying to provide a more Western-looking and acting company.”

    Biden added that while he was paid a lot of money, “I don’t think, though, that it stands out necessarily from anybody that was working on a board of a Fortune 500 company that is similar in size here in the United States, that receives a board fee, along with stock options. I think actually the truth of the matter is, is it’s right in line with that.”

    According to surveys conducted by Spencer Stuart, an executive search and leadership advisory firm, the average total compensation for S&P 500 directors was $321,220 in 2023. At S&P 500 companies with revenues over $10 billion, the average total director compensation was $338,592.

    Did Joe Biden have Ukraine’s prosecutor general fired as a favor to his son, who was serving on the Burisma board?

    In January 2018, Joe Biden disclosed during a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that during a trip to Kyiv as vice president he privately warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, and then-prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to deal with corruption and remove Viktor Shokin as its prosecutor general.

    That action has been at the center of Republican claims that Joe Biden took actions as vice president to benefit his son.

    “We believe President Biden committed a quid pro quo when he leveraged a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money in Ukraine in exchange for firing the prosecutor, Shokin, who was investigating Burisma,” Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House oversight committee, said on CNN on Dec. 8. “We believe that Joe Biden was directly involved in the termination. We believe this … because he admitted it on tape.”

    But as we have written, at the time, the Obama administration, the international community and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine were all calling for Shokin to be removed from office for his failure to aggressively prosecute corruption.

    In his testimony on Feb. 28, Hunter Biden contested the suggestion Shokin was fired at the behest of Joe Biden to prevent Shokin from investigating Burisma’s president.

    “That’s the exact opposite of the truth,” Hunter Biden testified. “And I think you can go to, I don’t know, maybe 15,000 public reports. And you can talk to the IMF, and you can talk to the — you can talk to the World Bank. And you can talk to the EU, the EU Commission on Energy and the EU Commission as it related to democracy. And you can talk to the State Department, or any State Department official that testified before your committee … and they can say the exact opposite.”

    “So I guess the most important point that I’d like to add and for once and for all here is that we can all agree is that there is not a single person other than [the recently indicted FBI informant] Alexander Smirnov who says that Shokin, that Shokin was fired because I was on the board of Burisma,” Biden said. “It’s literally the exact opposite, and that has been a fact now since it was first claimed. It is a fact. I’m telling you. It is a fact.”

    (For the record, Shokin himself blamed Joe Biden for his firing, though he had no proof.)

    “Viktor Shokin was the problem, and the entire world community was asking for his removal,” said Hunter Biden, who added that he personally “didn’t have any discussions whatsoever about Viktor Shokin. It was not a — on my radar at the time. … The one thing also to make absolutely clear is I never spoke to my dad about it. Never had any discussions with him about it, because the only honest — the only thing that would be of value here [for Burisma] would be for Viktor Shokin to stay in place, not the opposite.”

    What about that alleged phone call to “Washington, D.C.,” at the request of Burisma?

    Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business partner, testified that after a Burisma board meeting in Dubai in December 2015, Hunter Biden placed a phone call to “D.C.” after the Burisma president made an appeal for political help to resolve some problems Burisma was facing at the time. After Archer’s testimony, Reps. Comer and Jordan went on TV and claimed Hunter Biden subsequently called his father, and that several days later, Joe Biden called for the firing of Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general. Comer called it evidence of an illegal “quid pro quo.”

    Archer said the request from the Burisma executives was “like, can D.C. help? But … there weren’t specific, you know, ‘Can the big guy help?’ It was — it’s always this amorphous, ‘Can we get help in D.C.?’ … But it was — yeah, it was a high-pressure environment, and there was — there was constant requests for help.”

    Archer said he was not privy to the phone call that followed, but he initially said that in response to the request, he was told that Hunter Biden “called his dad.” Archer later clarified that the call was simply to “D.C.” and he wasn’t sure whom it was to.

    In his testimony on Feb. 28, Hunter Biden said he did not recall making any call to Washington, D.C., that day, let alone to his father.

    “I can say emphatically that I never, ever, ever picked up the phone to call my dad to tell him to do anything on behalf of Burisma,” Biden said.

    Asked if he was contradicting Archer’s testimony, Biden noted that Archer said he did not witness the phone call, only that he assumed Hunter Biden called D.C.

    “Well, Devon’s assumption was wrong,” Biden said. “I did not call D.C.”

    Did he put his father on speakerphone during meetings with business associates?

    Republicans heading up the impeachment inquiry have frequently cited instances in which Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone while he was with business associates as evidence that Joe Biden knew about and participated in his son’s overseas business deals.

    During his testimony to the committee, Archer revealed that on about 20 occasions over a 10-year period, Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone to exchange pleasantries with Hunter Biden’s business associates, part of what Archer described as the “brand” that Hunter Biden brought to foreign business deals.

    But contrary to what some Republicans claimed, Archer said Joe Biden never discussed any business on those calls, and typically did not even know to whom he was speaking.

    During his testimony on Feb. 28, Hunter Biden defended the calls as benign and insisted they had nothing to do with Joe Biden participating in his business endeavors.

    “Over the course of the last 30 years … I’m certain my dad has called me [on speakerphone],” Biden said. “My dad calls me like I’m sure a lot of your parents do or a lot of you do with your children, and if I’m with people that are friends of mine, I’ll have him say hi.”

    “It is nothing nefarious literally,” Biden said. “You understand my relationship with my family. When my dad was 29 years old, he woke up one day, went to work, and got a phone call and lost his wife and his daughter. And, in that same accident, he also lost almost my brother and myself. And then, when I was 46 years old, my 47-year-old brother died.

    “And in our family, when you have a call from — I call him or he calls me or I call one of my — his grandkids or one of my children, you always pick up the phone. It’s something that we always do. And you can ask anybody that I know; it does not have to do with Devon. If my dad calls me and I’m in the middle of something, I either get up from the table or I answer the phone at the table if it’s with people that I have a long-term relationship with.”

    Hunter Biden testified that there were also instances when, while dining with business associates, his father stopped by and exchanged pleasantries.

    When Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz raised the issue of Joe Biden sitting down at a restaurant table that included a Burisma executive, Hunter Biden drew a distinction between someone meeting his father, who was the vice president then, and “having a meeting” together.

    “They did not have a meeting; they met, which is a very, very important distinction with a difference,” Hunter Biden said.

    Gaetz asked Biden to clarify “how you can maintain that your father had nothing to do with your business ventures when your business associate is talking about an interaction with your father and then wanting to have coffee with you subsequently to discuss it.”

    Biden said that if his father “came in this room and shook everybody’s hand, as he would, because, as you know — and you guys have to do it yourselves. You walk these halls, you go to events, you go to dinners, you go to dinners for, you know, from everything under the sun, you sit at a table, you are at a table with 14 other people; ‘It was nice to meet you,’ ‘It was nice to meet you.’ Does it mean that you had a meeting?”

    Did Hunter Biden ever do business with a foreign government?

    During his testimony, Hunter Biden several times tried to draw a distinction between the foreign business deals he did and the one Jared Kushner, former President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, made after he left the White House with the Saudi crown prince. Kushner, who served as an adviser in the Trump White House, is reported to have received a $2 billion private equity investment from a fund controlled by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

    “I never worked for a country,” Biden said. “I am not Jared Kushner. I never got money from a country. Not one foreign government ever gave me money, guys — none, zero, not one.”

    Asked about Joe Biden’s claim that his son never received money from China, Hunter Biden said his father meant that Hunter had never received any money from the government of China.

    “Unlike Jared Kushner, I’ve never received money from a foreign government,” Biden said.

    (For the record, Joe Biden said in a debate with Trump in October 2020, “My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China.”)

    Hunter Biden acknowledged that he had received money from “a Chinese company,” adding that it was “all completely legal” and “incredibly ethical.”

    Biden said he worked with CEFC, a Chinese energy conglomerate, that was at the time “the largest independent company inside of China.”

    “The fact of the matter is, is that you can go back and read anything that you want about CEFC during that period of time, and the anomaly of CEFC was this: is that they were not state-owned,” Biden said. “They had taken the place of one of the large state-owned entities and had outgrown them. They were a privately held company.”

    Biden said he began working for CEFC when he got a retainer in the spring of 2017, after his father left office as vice president.

    “And so number one is this: is that my business with CEFC, which was completely legitimate and completely, 100 percent in line with my experience and my abilities, was done when my father wasn’t even in office,” Biden said. “He was out of office. It had nothing to do with my father. … My father never benefited from my business. My father never made any decisions as it related to my business to benefit me. My father was never financially, nor any other way, of benefit from my business.”

    In January 2017, Reuters reported that CEFC had “gained financing from the state-owned China Development Bank (CDB) and has hired a number of former top officials from state-owned energy companies,” according to CEFC officials. Reuters also reported that CEFC “has layers of Communist Party committees across its subsidiaries – more than at many private Chinese companies.”

    A Chinese government group took control of CEFC in March 2018, and it was declared bankrupt in 2020.

    What about the time Hunter Biden claimed in a message to be “sitting here with my father” while demanding action from a Chinese businessman?

    In an interview with the House Ways and Means Committee in April 2023, an IRS whistleblower who was overseeing the agency’s criminal tax investigation of Hunter Biden disclosed the agency had obtained a WhatsApp message that Hunter Biden sent to a Chinese businessman in which he invoked his father’s name.

    In the July 30, 2017, WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, Biden wrote: “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.”

    “Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,” Biden continued in the message. “And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

    As we wrote last year, it was a clear example of the president’s son trading on his father’s name in his business dealings with foreign companies. But IRS agents could not confirm if Joe Biden was in the room when his son sent that message, as former President Donald Trump once claimed, and Hunter Biden testified on Feb. 28 that his father was not, in fact, in the room at the time.

    Biden said he had no recollection of sending the message, and that it was apparently sent while he was in the throes of his drug and alcohol addiction.

    “Again, I don’t — my addiction is not an excuse, but I can tell you this: I am more embarrassed of this text message, if it actually did come from me, than any text message I’ve ever sent,” Biden said. “And I was out of my mind. I can also tell you this: My father was not sitting next to me. My father had no awareness. My father had no awareness of the business that I was doing. My father never benefited from any of the business that I was doing. And so, I take full responsibility for being an absolute ass and idiot when I sent this message, if I did send this message.”

    Biden said the message was sent to the wrong person. Biden said the message went to “Henry Zhao who had no involvement, who had no understanding or even remotely knew what the hell I was even goddamn talking about” rather than Raymond Zhao who was “connected to CEFC,” the Chinese energy company for which Hunter Biden was doing business.

    That mix-up “I think is the best indication of how out of my mind I was at this moment in time,” Biden said.

    And so when Raymond Zhao called Hunter Biden the next day, he said, it was “not related to the message that was sent. I speak to him the next day. They’re two completely different sets of messages. One goes a number because, I made the goddamn — excuse my language again — because I made like an idiot, and I was drunk and probably high, sent a — this ridiculous message to a Zhao, to a Henry Zhao. But then the next day, I speak to a Raymond Zhao, who has never received the message that Henry Zhao got.”

    Was Joe Biden the one being referenced in a proposed business arrangement that included 10% for “the big guy”?

    The oversight committee obtained an email in which James Gilliar, a business associate of Hunter Biden, discussed the possible equity for the partners in a business deal that involved Hunter and CEFC, a Chinese energy conglomerate, and referenced, “10 held by H for the big guy?”

    Republicans on the committee pointed to this as evidence that Joe Biden had a financial stake in his son’s overseas business deals. But as we wrote, the final draft agreement setting up the venture made no mention of Joe Biden.

    “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure,” Gilliar told the Wall Street Journal in 2020. “I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”

    In his testimony on Feb. 28, Hunter Biden was asked if “the big guy” was a reference to his father.

    “I truly don’t know what the hell that James [Gilliar] was talking about,” Biden said. “All I know is that what actually happened. All I know is that what was executed in the agreement, and the agreement didn’t have anything to do with my father. My father’s never been involved with my business. He’s never benefited from my business, and he’s never taken an action to benefit me or any of my business.”

    Biden said it was likely “pie in the sky” thinking by Gilliar, “Like Joe Biden’s out of the office. Maybe we’ll be able to get him involved. Remember, again, is that Joe Biden, for first time in 48 years, is not an elected official and is not seeking office. And so James is probably, like, wow, wouldn’t be great if a former vice president could be in our business together? And I say you’re out of your mind. My dad knows less about doing cross-border blah, blah, blah, than he does about — I mean, it’s just ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

    “And so I shut it down, and the evidence of me shutting it down is the actual things you have as evidence,” Biden said. “Remember that. The agreement, the executed agreement, the executed agreement to create a company that was never operated, that’s what happened. That’s the evidence you have. You have the evidence of the executed agreement between Hudson West Three, me, and Mr. Ye. You have that. Nothing to do with my dad, zero.”

    Is Joe Biden the “my chairman” Hunter referred to in business correspondence?

    Hunter Biden was asked to account for a 2017 electronic message obtained by House investigators that some Republicans speculated may have been a reference to Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunter Biden’s business with CEFC, the Chinese energy company.

    The message from Hunter Biden to business associate Tony Bobulinski stated, “Hey, Tony, I have an idea. In light of the fact that we are an impasse of sorts in both James’ lawyers and my Chairman gave an emphatic no, I think we should all meet in Romania on Tuesday next week.”

    In an interview with Fox News in October 2020, Bobulinski said “what Hunter is referencing there is he spoke with his father, and his father is giving an emphatic no” to proposed terms of a deal with CEFC.

    A later message from another business associate, Rob Walker, to Bobulinski stated, “When he said ‘his chairman,’ he was talking about his dad, and I think your dismissal of it may have offended him a bit, but you didn’t know what he was talking about.”

    During his testimony before the oversight and judiciary committees on Jan. 26, Walker was asked, “If Joe Biden had no involvement in the business dealings, why would Hunter Biden refer to him as chairman, and why would you associate the chairman to be Joe Biden?”

    “That is what I was thinking he was referring to,” Walker said. “If I reread it, I’m not positive.”

    In his Feb. 28 testimony, Hunter Biden said he was not referring to his father as “my chairman,” and that both Bobulinski and Walker were mistaken.

    “The reference here to my chairman is clearly to the two different chairmen. If you do business and you’ve ever been to China, anyone that is — whether you’re the — you run a popsicle stand or you run a multinational corporation, you’re referred to as the chairman,” Biden said. “And, in CEFC, there were two people that we regularly referred to as chairman. One was Chairman Ye, who was the titular chairman of the company, and the other was Mr. Zhang. Chairman Zhang, also when you would meet with him, you would refer to him as Chairman Zhang. … Tony and James were talking to Zhang. I was
    talking to Ye, which is one of the conflicting things between us to begin with. That’s the chairman I’m referring to.”

    “I don’t know that I’ve ever, ever referred to my father as my chairman,” Biden said, adding that the suggestion his message was referring to his father was “laughable.”

    Did Joe Biden share office space with Hunter?

    In a Sept. 13, 2023, press release claiming to reveal “Evidence of Joe Biden’s Involvement in His Family’s Influence Peddling Schemes,” Republicans on the House oversight committee pointed to a Sept. 21, 2017, email from Hunter Biden that “show[s] that Hunter Biden, CEFC officials, and Joe Biden would share offices under the Hudson West/CEFC/Biden Foundation name.”

    Rep. Gaetz asked Hunter Biden about the email during his testimony.

    Biden said it was sent during a time that he was “in active addiction.” Biden said his lease of office space at a building in Washington, DC, that also houses the Swedish Embassy was up for renewal “and they were not going to renew my lease.”

    “And I said to them, ‘Look, I’m not going to be the sole person that’s in this. I want it for the Biden Foundation, and this could be an office space,” Biden said. “It was a beautiful office space. It can be for my mom and my dad. … I didn’t get the lease. I … left the office, and no one in my family or anyone else, including myself, ever got a key to the [House of] Sweden again.”

    “In my addled brain at the time, it was a way that I was going to redeem myself, is that I was going to show everybody that I was okay, that I wasn’t out of my mind in the midst of addiction, and that what I was going to do is that I was going to get my mom this beautiful corner office that was there, and she would love it, and we’d all be okay, and everything would go back to normal,” Biden said. “And my dad was out of office now, and we could all do things as a family. And it just — you know, it was pie-in-the-sky ridiculousness. They never took an office. They never got anything, and I didn’t — and I didn’t even remain in that office.”

    Under questioning from Gaetz, Biden acknowledged that he “contemplated” the deal, but that it never happened. Besides, he said, at the time his father was out of office.

    “So it’s okay to do business with your dad when he’s out of office is your testimony?” Gaetz asked.

    “Of course, it would be okay to do business with my dad when he’s out of office,” Biden responded.

    The arrangement, he said, would not have involved Joe Biden in his business with CEFC.

    “This isn’t about doing business with Chinese,” Biden said. “I wanted it for the Biden Foundation, for it to be housed in the office space that I had. And I just contemplated that.”

    The Biden Foundation was a nonprofit founded in 2017 by Joe and Jill Biden with the stated mission to “champion progress and prosperity for American families.” The foundation suspended operations in April 2019 when Joe Biden announced his candidacy for president.

    Did Hunter Biden accept payments from the wife of the ex-mayor of Moscow?

    A joint report issued by the Republican staff of the Senate Finance and Homeland Security committees less than two months before the 2020 election alleged that “Hunter Biden and his associate, Archer, had a financial relationship with Russian businesswoman Elena Baturina.” Baturina was the wife of the late Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov.

    In August 2023, Comer issued a press release in which he said, “Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina transferred $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton,” which he said was “a shell company associated with Hunter Biden and Devon Archer.”

    During his congressional testimony, however, Archer said he was involved in a $120 million real estate deal with Baturina, CEO of the real estate company Inteco, that involved two warehouses in Brooklyn. Archer said a $3.5 million commission from Baturina ended up in an account for Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company in which Hunter Biden held an ownership stake. “Quite frankly,” Archer said, “it was not supposed to go there, but that’s where it went.”

    Archer said that Biden was “not involved” in the real estate deal, and that the money was supposed to have gone to Rosemont Realty. Archer said Hunter Biden had only a “minimal” connection to, and no ownership stake in, Rosemont Realty.

    During his testimony on Feb. 28, Biden was asked if Baturina paid $3.5 million “to the companies you were involved with.”

    “Listen, I had nothing to do with Rosemont-whatever entity, the realty or whatever it is. That was Devon’s,” Biden said. “I never received a dime from Ms. Baturina. I didn’t have any involvement with her in any way.”

    “That was Devon’s relationship,” Biden said. “And I think that she made an investment into, according to Devon, into actual commercial property.”

    What about the alleged $5 million bribes paid to Hunter and Joe Biden?

    Republicans did not bring up the allegations made by an FBI informant that the president of Burisma paid bribes to both Hunter and Joe Biden, allegations that were once a centerpiece of the House impeachment inquiry. But Hunter Biden did.

    On Feb. 15, the Department of Justice indicted the former FBI informant, Alexander Smirnov, for lying to the FBI in 2020, when Smirnov claimed that Joe and Hunter Biden each received a $5 million bribe from a Ukrainian company, while Joe Biden was vice president. In a Feb. 20 court filing, the Justice Department alleged that Smirnov has ties to Russian intelligence officials and his “efforts to spread misinformation about a candidate of one of the two major parties in the United States continues.”

    During his questioning of Hunter Biden on Feb. 28, Rep. Gaetz asked if Biden had ever bribed anyone, solicited a bribe or had anyone solicit a bribe from him. Biden responded “no” to all of those. But Gaetz said his inquiry was related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, under which, he said, “you can actually be guilty of paying a bribe if you pay money to a family member.”

    Gaetz later asked if a dinner attended by a Burisma official, which Joe Biden also attended, amounted to a bribe.

    “I would love to see the evidence of that,” Biden responded. “I think the only person … that you believe that has evidence of that is a guy named Alexander Smirnov, who’s in lockup in L.A. right now, being charged and indicted for lying on behalf of Russian intelligence.”

    Earlier in his testimony, Biden made mention of Smirnov, telling Republicans on the committee that Smirnov “has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father” and “has been indicted for his lies.”


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Source

  • Fact Check: Energy weapons, blue roofs and food supply attacks: Texas wildfires revive baseless claims

    As Texas tries to contain the biggest wildfire in the state’s history, baseless conspiracy theories that first circulated online after other well-known fires are resurfacing.

    More than 1 million acres of land have burned so far in Texas from the wildfires, which began in late February. The Smokehouse Creek fire, the largest of the fires, has killed at least two people and thousands of animals in a state known for its cattle industry.

    False claims about government attacks with directed energy weapons and certain homes painted blue being spared that first surfaced last year during devastating wildfires in Maui, Hawaii, are now being applied to Texas. Other social media users have revived a long-running conspiracy about attacks on the U.S. food supply by nefarious, unnamed forces. 

    Here are some of the false claims circulating on social media about the Texas wildfires.

    No proof of ‘deliberate’ attack on food supply

    In the past two years, PolitiFact has debunked numerous claims that unknown actors are attacking the nation’s food supply, targeting farms and food processing facilities to starve people.

    The claim of food supply attacks resurfaced after wildfires ravaged ranges in the Texas Panhandle and killed thousands of livestock animals. This claim is False. There’s no evidence the fires were set intentionally and experts we spoke with said the fires’ effect on the nation’s food supply likely would be minimal.

    Texas authorities, as of March 6, continue to investigate the Smokehouse Creek fire’s cause, but they have not suggested it was intentionally ignited. Hot weather, dry land and high winds have helped spread the still-burning blaze. One homeowner has sued a utility company for not maintaining a damaged power pole, alleging downed power lines started the fire.

    (Instagram screenshot)

    Directed energy weapons didn’t start the wildfires

    Some social media users said a video of a green laser beam is evidence that directed energy weapons were used to start the Texas wildfires. This claim is False.

    The green laser beam video predates the Texas wildfires. It was shared online as early as Dec. 31, 2023, from an account known for videos that purport to show paranormal or extraterrestrial activity.

    Other online claims baselessly alleged that directed energy weapons were used to start deadly fires that ravaged Maui in August 2023; wildfires there killed more than 100 people and destroyed thousands of buildings in the town of Lahaina.  

    PolitiFact has also debunked similar claims that those weapons were used to start fires in Canada and Russia.

    Directed energy weapons are real, and the United States and other countries are researching them for military purposes, but there’s no evidence they were used to ignite the Texas wildfires.

    President Joe Biden’s comments didn’t prove ‘blue roof’ conspiracy theory

    Social media users took comments that Biden made about a home that avoided burning during the Texas wildfires to revive a conspiracy theory that first surfaced in the Maui wildfires.

    “If you fly over these areas that are burned to the ground, you’ll see in the midst of 20 homes that are just totally destroyed, one home sitting there because it had the right roof on it,” Biden said.

    One Instagram post showed the clip of Biden with text saying, “Remember the blue roofs during the Lahaina fires? Biden just seemed to confirm our suspicions.”

    This claim is False.

    “Blue roofs” refers to baseless claims that celebrities were painting their Maui roofs blue and that those homes were spared by directed energy weapons.

    Experts we spoke to about the Maui claims said it’s common for fires to “hop” from place to place via flying embers and for some structures or trees not to ignite, even if everything around them does.

    Biden was not talking about roof colors, a longer video of his comments shows. He was saying some roofs were intact because the structures were up to code, not because they were painted blue.

    (Instagram screenshot)

    Photo doesn’t show Smokehouse Creek fire; it’s from 2017

    A Facebook post claimed a photo showed the Texas wildfire, but the image was first posted in 2017. This claim is False. 

    A reverse-image search showed the photo was from an August 2017 Texas Monthly article about a fire in Gray County, Texas.

    PolitiFact staff writers Sara Swann and Loreben Tuquero contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Posts Make Baseless Claim About Net Worth of Ocasio-Cortez

    Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

    Quick Take

    Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York reported having $60,000 at most in bank accounts and other savings and as much as $50,000 in student loan debt in her 2023 financial disclosure report. But social media posts baselessly claim that since becoming a member of Congress, she is “a verified multi-millionaire.”


    Full Story

    U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York became the youngest woman to serve in Congress when she started her first term in the House in January 2019.

    As a high-profile member of a progressive Democratic group known as “The Squad” during her initial years in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez has often been the target of unfounded and false claims on social media, as we’ve written.

    Recent posts have made a baseless claim about Ocasio-Cortez’s financial status since becoming a member of Congress, suggesting she has inexplicably profited from her time in office.

    A March 3 post on Facebook shows an illustration of Ocasio-Cortez slumped on a street bench, with text that claims, “This Bartender Was Thousands of Dollars In Debt When Running For Office But Five Years Later Is A Verified Multi-Millionaire On 174k/yr Salary.”

    A March 4 post on Instagram, which shows several photos of Ocasio-Cortez, claims, “A broke bartender elected to Congress, assumes office in 2019 with a salary of $155,000 is now worth $29 million and the DOJ is prosecuting Donald Trump.”

    Former President Trump has been indicted four times and has been charged with 91 felony counts in two cases pursued by the Department of Justice and cases prosecuted by the states of New York and Georgia. In addition, a New York judge fined Trump $354.8 million and about $100 million in interest in a civil fraud suit in February, and a federal judge ordered the former president to pay writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million based on a jury’s verdict in a January defamation trial.

    Ocasio-Cortez was the subject of an investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which found in June 2022 that she “may have accepted impermissible gifts associated with her attendance at the Met Gala in 2021.” The nonpartisan office said Ocasio-Cortez didn’t pay for the rented dress she wore to the gala or for hairstyling and make-up bills until after she was questioned by the office.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks to the media on Feb. 28 in Washington, D.C. Photo by Jemal Countess via Getty Images for Congressional Integrity Project.

    The claims about the congresswoman being a “Multi-Millionaire” are unfounded, however.

    According to Ocasio-Cortez’s last financial disclosure — a report required each year from members of Congress — she had savings, checking, brokerage and 401(k) accounts each with $1,001 to $15,000, or a total of $60,000 in assets at most. Her report filed on Aug. 13, 2023, also showed a liability of between $15,001 and $50,000 in student loan debt.

    Reuters also found no evidence to support a claim in 2022 that Ocasio-Cortez had a net worth of $29 million. The congresswoman addressed the claim in 2022, citing the Reuters fact-check article on her campaign website.

    The Facebook post correctly states that the annual salary of most members of Congress, which is set by law, is $174,000, and has been since 2009.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    AOC. Campaign website. “Fact Check: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does NOT have a net worth of $29 million.” Accessed 6 Mar 2024.

    Associated Press. “Here’s where all the cases against Trump stand as he campaigns for a return to the White House.” 28 Feb 2024.

    Charalambous, Peter and Aaron Katersky. “Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds ‘shock the conscience.’” ABC News. 16 Feb 2024.

    Clerk of the House of Representatives. Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Financial Disclosure Report. 13 Aug 2023.

    Cohen, Rebecca and Madison Hall. “AOC only paid for her Met Gala outfit and other possible ‘impermissible gifts’ after investigators asked about it, ethics agency finds.” Business Insider. 2 Mar 2023.

    Congressional Research Service. Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief. Accessed 6 Mar 2024.

    Fichera, Angelo. “A Phantom Ocasio-Cortez Quote on Gun Ownership.” 12 Apr 2019.

    Fichera, Angelo. “Meme Fabricates Ocasio-Cortez Firing.” FactCheck.org. 6 Mar 2019.

    Fichera, Angelo. “Viral Story Spreads Made-Up AOC ‘Quote’ on Soldiers.” FactCheck.org. 23 Jul 2019.

    Hess, Abigail Johnson. “29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes history as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.” CNBC. Updated 29 Nov 2018.

    Office of Congressional Ethics. About. Accessed 6 Mar 2024.

    Office of Congressional Ethics, United States House of Representatives. Review No. 22-8546. 17 Jun 2022.

    Reuters. “No evidence Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a net worth of $29 million.” 9 Aug 2022.

    Scannell, Kara. “Judge affirms $83.3 million verdict against Donald Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation case.” 8 Feb 2024.

    Spencer, Saranac Hale. “Fake AOC Quotes Keep on Trucking.” FactCheck.org. 19 Jul 2019.

    Spencer, Saranac Hale. “Fake AOC Tweet Politicizes COVID-19 Business Restrictions.” 24 Jun 2020.

    Statista. “Annual salary of members of the United States Congress from 1990 to 2023.” Accessed 6 Mar 2024.

    Sullivan, Kate. “Here are the 4 congresswomen known as ‘The Squad’ targeted by Trump’s racist tweets.” CNN. 16 Jul 2019.

    Source