Category: Fact Check

  • Fact Check: Fact-checking claims about what special counsel report said about Biden

    Special counsel Robert Hur on Feb. 8 released his long-awaited report into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents. Social media users then parsed Hur’s words from the report to make unfounded claims about the report’s conclusions. 

    Hur said in his report he declined to prosecute Biden, but noted there was evidence Biden willfully retained classified documents. The report’s contents also touched off a primetime news conference in which Biden defended himself from Hur’s many descriptions of Biden’s faulty memory.

    We fact-checked some of the claims. 

    “DOJ says Biden is unfit and (too) incompetent to stand trial.”

    — Feb. 9 Instagram post

    “Federal government declares Biden mentally unfit for office, senile in damning report.”

    — Benny Johnson, Feb. 8 Facebook post

    These characterizations are inaccurate.

    Hur’s report made several references to Biden’s “poor memory,” writing that his memory “was significantly limited” during interviews with the special counsel. Hur cited that as one reason he declined to prosecute the president.

    Hur wrote about Biden’s “diminished faculties and faulty memory” and said Biden couldn’t remember when he was vice president or the year his son Beau died. The president denied these allegations.

    Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who is now president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said the report did not declare Biden unfit or incompetent to stand trial.

    “Incompetence is a legal term and means a criminal defendant does not understand the nature of the proceedings and is unable to assist in his or her defense. That is not what Hur said,” Rahmani said. “Nor did Hur address Biden’s suitability to hold public office. It would have been inappropriate for him to do so.”

    Ric Simmons, an Ohio State University law professor, agreed the special counsel never said Biden was incompetent to stand trial or unfit for office.

    “It said that a jury might be sympathetic to him because of his age and that his memory issues might make it harder to prove all the elements of the crime,” Simmons said.

    The report also never said Biden was mentally unfit for office, Simmons said. 

    “The special counsel would have no way of ascertaining this,” he said.

    Simmons said the report also did not use the word “senile,” despite its many references to Biden’s memory.

    “This might fit in with some definitions of ‘senile,’ which is defined as a loss of mental functions due to old age, but it does not fit the usual connotation of senility, which is an inability to perform basic mental tasks,” Simmons said.

    Special Counsel Robert Hur, seen here when he was a U.S. attorney in Baltimore in 2019, released a report Feb. 8, 2024, into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified materials. (AP)

    “Based on findings from his Justice Department, Joe Biden is identified as a criminal not suitable for trial.”

    —  Feb. 9 Instagram post

    The report neither identified Biden as a criminal, nor exonerated him. 

    Hur suggested Biden might have committed a crime, writing, “Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”

    The report referred to documents related to Afghanistan and to handwritten notebooks from Biden’s time as vice president. But Hur declined to prosecute, saying “we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Simmons said although the report said there was sufficient evidence to charge Biden with a crime, Biden wasn’t identified in the report as a criminal.

    “A prosecutor never ‘identifies’ someone as a criminal. They merely bring charges if they think there is sufficient evidence to convict,” Simmons said.

    Hur wrote that getting a conviction would face several hurdles: 

    • Because the documents in question are almost 15 years old and about Afghanistan, a conflict that has ended, Biden’s defense would strongly question whether they still contained sensitive national security information.

    • Biden was allowed to have the documents in his home while he was vice president through 2016 and again as president. “It may be difficult to convince a jury they should care” about his “brief illicit possession of documents,” Hur wrote.

    • Biden would likely present himself to a jury as “a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly mean with a poor memory.” It would not be easy persuading a jury to convict him of a serious felony “that requires a mental state of willfulness,” Hur wrote.

    • Biden’s cooperation with the investigation would likely cause some jurors to think he kept the documents by mistake.

    Because the government was unlikely to get a conviction at trial, “we decline prosecution,” Hur wrote.

    RELATED: Biden won’t be charged in classified documents case, but special counsel report questions his memory 

    RELATED: Biden classified documents: What special counsel report says about ‘willful retention’ 

    RELATED: President Biden said he didn’t have highly classified documents. The special counsel says otherwise. 

    RELATED: Trump says he ‘cooperated far more’ than Biden in classified documents cases. Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: Fact-checking Joe Biden about sharing classified materials, keeping them in lockable cabinets 



    Source

  • Fact Check: Ask PolitiFact: Were the pictures in the Jesus ‘washed feet’ Super Bowl ad AI generated?

    Trusting what you see is harder than ever these days.

    During Super Bowl LVIII, artificial intelligence appeared in multiple ads, as a product, a highlighted feature of a product or as the butt of a joke. 

    For some viewers, AI was so top of mind that they started seeing it even where it wasn’t. 

    In one case, a 60-second commercial for the campaign “He Gets Us” prompted some social media users to ask: “Was that Jesus commercial composed entirely of AI images?” 

    The minute-long ad, which aired during the game’s first quarter, featured more than 10 images that seemed surreal at first glance. It showed people of different ages, genders and races washing someone else’s foot in a variety of settings — a school hallway, a front yard, a desert landscape, a protest.

    The ad opened with a still image of a dining room: In the foreground, a young man with short blond hair washed the feet of an older man with graying hair and glasses. The next image featured a young man in a dark alley with one foot on an overturned milk crate. A police officer used a 2-liter soda bottle and rag to wash the young man’s foot. 

    The third image shows what looks like a high school hallway, with two students in the foreground, one pouring water on the foot of the other. 

    A slowed-down cover of the INXS song “Never Tear Us Apart” played as the ad transitioned from image to image. Text at the very end said: “Jesus didn’t teach hate,” in all-capital letters. “He washed feet.” 

    The commercial referred viewers to the website HeGetsUs.com/LoveYourNeighbor.  

    Many viewers on Reddit and on social media questioned whether the visuals depicted real people or were created using artificial intelligence.

    PolitiFact’s verdict: No, the images from the He Gets Us Super Bowl commercial were not AI generated. 

    They were photographs taken by fine-art photographer Julia Fullerton-Batten. She confirmed she took the photos in an email to PolitiFact, and He Gets Us credited them to her. 

    Fullerton-Batten’s website describes her photography style as “highly cinematic visual storytelling,” and says that in her larger projects, each image “embellishes her subject matter in a series of thought-provoking narrative ‘stories.’

    The site says that by using “unusual locations, highly creative settings, street-cast models, accented with cinematic lighting” Fullerton-Batten’s “insinuates visual tensions in her images and imbues them with a mystique that teases the viewer into continually re-examining the picture.”

    (Screenshot from YouTube)

    On its website, He Gets Us says it is a campaign created by a “diverse group of Jesus fans and followers with a variety of faith journeys” that aims to “move beyond the mess of our current cultural moment to a place where all of us are invited to rediscover the love story of Jesus – Christians, non-Christians, and everybody in between.” 

    He Gets Us says it is managed by Come Near, a nonprofit organization. 

    A He Gets Us spokesperson said the ad was created by Lerma, a Dallas-based advertising agency. Lerma spokesperson Jon Lee told Ad Age that Fullerton-Batten’s photography portrays “an idealistic kind of world.” 

    “We took these different subjects that might be considered to be ideologically different than one another and we created this new style to imagine what the world might look like,” he said. Lee said the ad’s intent was “to share the authentic love that Jesus showed to all people.”

    The ad was based on a Bible story about Jesus washing the disciples’ feet, a lesson of humility  in service to others. 

    Lerma did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment.

    A He Gets Us blog post said the “images of people washing each other’s feet look a little strange and disconcerting because it’s not part of our modern-day customs. But there’s also something beautiful and profound in each image.”

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Trump’s Distorted NATO ‘Delinquent’ Comments

    At a rally in South Carolina, Donald Trump said that when he was president, he told the leader of a large NATO country that if the country was “delinquent” in its payments to NATO and Russia attacked it, “I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

    Trump’s comments drew condemnation from the White House, European leaders, the NATO chief and some Republicans.

    As he did in the Feb. 10 rally, Trump has long mischaracterized what he calls “delinquent” payments from alliance members to NATO. Although NATO countries pay direct costs for NATO’s common fund based on a formula, Trump is referring to the indirect costs countries pay toward their own defense in general. Countries don’t owe money to anyone else if they spend less on defense than other member countries.

    “That’s not how NATO works,” James Goldgeier, a former dean of the School of International Service at American University who currently teaches at the university and sits on the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board, told us in an email. “There is a common budget that countries pay into, but most of what we think of as NATO defense spending refers to individual country defense spending and preparedness to be able to operate as a military alliance.”

    In 2006, NATO countries made a commitment to aim to spend 2% of their gross domestic product on their own defense. A NATO spokesman at the time said: “Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance.”

    A 2014 NATO declaration after a summit in Wales again said that countries that weren’t meeting the 2% goal would “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade.”

    According to NATO, 11 countries, including the U.S., are spending at least 2% of their GDP on their defense. Nineteen other countries do not meet that threshold, but with the exception of Croatia and Turkey, all are estimated to be spending more on defense as a percentage of their GDP in 2023 than they did in 2014. According to the NATO report, it was estimated the U.S. would spend 3.49% of its GDP on defense in 2023, second only to Poland, at 3.9%.

    Source: NATO July 2023 report

    Alliance members also pay money for NATO’s commonly funded budget. That’s a direct cost. The U.S. currently pays about 16.2% — the same as Germany — of NATO’s “principal budgets” that are funded by all alliance members based on a cost-sharing formula that factors in the gross national income of each country. The principal budget categories include the civil budget, the military budget and the NATO Security Investment Programme. But, again, when Trump is referring to NATO spending, he is referring to the indirect costs each country spends on its defense.

    In his speech in South Carolina, Trump made several misleading statements.

    “NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said. “I said everybody’s going to pay. They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer. And everybody, you never saw more money pour in.”

    Trump gestures to members of the audience as he leaves a Get Out The Vote rally on Feb. 10 in Conway, South Carolina. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

    “One of the presidents of a big country stood up said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia will you protect us?’” Trump said. “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes. Let’s say that happened.’ ‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills. And the money came flowing in.”

    “And that’s why they have money today because of what I did,” Trump said. “And then I hear that they like Obama better. They should like Obama better. You know why? Because he didn’t ask for anything. We were like the stupid country of the world and we’re not going to be the stupid country of the world any longer.”

    Trump’s comment that the U.S. would not defend a NATO ally attacked by Russia, and that he would “encourage” the attack, is a rejection of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in 1949, in which NATO alliance members “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” According to the treaty, NATO countries “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

    It’s also not true that NATO was “busted” until Trump stepped in — even in terms of indirect spending by countries on defense, that was going up before Trump took office. As we have written, after years of decreases, combined defense spending by non-U.S. NATO members has increased every year since 2015 — two years before Trump assumed office. Combined NATO defense spending increased about 11.5% between 2016, the year before Trump took office, and 2020, Trump’s last year in office, according to NATO. The amount paid by NATO members other than the U.S. increased by about 19.8% over the same period.

    Meanwhile, U.S. defense spending as a percentage of overall NATO spending declined from 71% in 2016 to 69% in 2020.

    Trump was also wrong when he claimed former President Barack Obama “didn’t ask for anything.” Obama and his top aides repeatedly pressured NATO countries to increase their military spending, but it wasn’t until Russia in early 2014 invaded and took control of Crimea in Ukraine that the member countries agreed to take action.

    In 2010, while countries around the world were recovering from a recession, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed concern about NATO members cutting back on military spending for their active-duty forces and further shifting the burden of NATO’s collective defense onto the U.S. By 2011, Gates was warning of a “dim, if not dismal future” for NATO if member countries did not “halt and reverse” the decline in defense spending.

    After Russia invaded Crimea, Obama gave several speeches urging NATO countries to increase their defense spending, leading up to a September 2014 agreement in which each country agreed to increase their military spending over the next decade toward a 2% goal.

    Obama, March 26, 2014, in Belgium: But one of the things that I’ve also said in the past, and will repeat again, and I think [then-NATO] Secretary General [Anders Fogh] Rasmussen agrees with me here, is that if we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in. And I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO; not all, but many. The trend lines have been going down. … So one of the things that I think, medium and long term, we’ll have to examine is whether everybody is chipping in. And this can’t just be a U.S. exercise or a British exercise or one country’s efforts; everybody’s going to have to make sure that they are engaged and involved.

    Obama, June 3, 2014, in Poland: A number of [Central and Eastern European] countries represented here have already committed to increasing their investments in our collective defense, and today we’ll be discussing additional steps that we can take both as individual nations and as an alliance to make sure we have the capabilities that we need.

    Obama, Sept. 3, 2014, in Estonia: For I think a certain period of time there was a complacency here in Europe about the demands that were required to make sure that NATO was able to function effectively. My former secretary of defense I think came here and gave some fairly sharp speeches repeatedly about the need for making certain that every NATO member was doing its fair share.

    On Sept. 5, 2014, Obama announced at a NATO summit in Wales that the leaders of the NATO countries had agreed to a series of steps to strengthen the organization’s collective defense, including a “move toward investing 2% of their GDP in our collective security.”

    “Fourth, all 28 NATO nations have pledged to increase their investments in defense and to move toward investing 2% of their GDP in our collective security,” Obama said. “These resources will help NATO invest in critical capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and missile defense. And this commitment makes clear that NATO will not be complacent. Our Alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges that we face in the 21st century.”

    Goldgeier told us that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower has “urged Europeans to do more,” including Obama.

    “The September [2014] Wales summit did see NATO members put forward an aspiration of spending at least 2% on defense. Many countries did start spending more,” Goldgeier said. “During the Trump presidency, the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, was also helpful in getting NATO members to spend more on defense by urging Europeans to do more. The most important person since 2014 for getting NATO members to spend more on defense has been Vladimir Putin. He poses a clear threat to Europe, and NATO members have responded.”


    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: What Florida’s driver’s license policy change means for transgender people

    No one likes going to the DMV, but what drove LGBTQ+ activists in Florida to stage a “die-in” at the traditionally mundane administrative buildings on Feb. 9?

    Answer: a memo, shared online Jan. 29, from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that transgender Floridians and their advocates say threatens to subject them to increased marginalization and harassment.

    “Florida has taken unilateral administrative action and banned gender marker changes on drivers licenses,” Alejandra Caraballo, a Harvard Law instructor and LGBTQ+ advocate, wrote on X. “Any trans person who has had theirs changed is potentially subject to suspension. Anyone attempting to change it after could be criminally prosecuted for ‘fraud.’”

    The memo from Robert Kynoch, the agency’s deputy executive director, detailed a policy change prohibiting Floridians from replacing their driver’s licenses to change what appears on the license next to the word “sex.” The move comes ahead of two bills in the state Legislature that, if passed, would force a similar policy.


    (Source: Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles)

    The agency’s action prevents transgender people from changing the “M” or “F” on an existing license. But it’s unclear how this change would affect new license applications or license-holders who have already changed their licenses to reflect their gender identities.

    The memo also said that when “gender” is used in the driver’s license statute in Florida law, it refers to “immutable biological and genetic characteristics.” It asserted that misrepresenting gender during the license application process could result in criminal or civil penalties.  

    “Gender” is not defined in the chapter of the law that governs driver’s licenses and ID cards, and legal experts told PolitiFact they question whether the department is legally authorized to impose this statutory interpretation.

    Transgender legal advocates told PolitiFact they believe the policy change merits legal challenge but, with legislators seemingly poised to try to codify a similar rule, attorneys are watching and weighing their options.

    Here’s what we learned.

    Memo prohibits replacing licenses for purposes of changing one’s gender

    Before the department’s policy change, people who provided a letter from a medical provider confirming they were undergoing gender transition treatment were allowed to change what appeared in the “sex” field of their license or ID — either “M” or “F”—  to align with their gender identity, male or female.

    Although “sex” and “gender” are often used as synonyms, medical experts and most major medical organizations define these terms differently.

    Sex refers to a biological category determined by physical features such as genes, hormones and genitalia — male, female or intersex, which means they were born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit neatly into any category.

    Gender identity refers to someone’s internal sense of being a man, woman, something in-between or neither, experts say. For many people, their sex and gender are the same, but people who are transgender have a mismatch between the two.

    Kynoch’s memo said the old policy that allowed people to get new licenses to reflect a gender change is “not supported by statutory authority” and cited Florida statute 322.17, which outlines conditions under which the department can issue a replacement license. 

    That statute says a replacement can be issued if an ID is lost, stolen or if there is a change to someone’s name, address or driving restrictions. Replacing the license for a change in gender identity, therefore, is not supported by statute, the memo argued. 

    Different sections of the law in Florida govern license “renewals” and “replacement,” so it is unclear whether people who had already changed their gender on their license could renew their existing licenses as is. The department did not answer PolitiFact’s questions about renewals.

    Memo asserts definition of ‘gender’ and warns of fraud penalties 

    The memo’s final two paragraphs grabbed attention from LGBTQ+ advocates. It read:

    “Furthermore, the term ‘gender’ in s. 322.08, F.S., does not refer to a person’s internal sense of his or her gender role or identification but has historically and commonly been understood as a synonym for ‘sex,’ which is determined by innate and immutable biological and genetic characteristics.” 

    It is unclear what Kynoch based this definition of “gender” on. 

    The portion of the law his memo cited says only that “gender” is one piece of information required to be collected on a license application, along with a person’s full name, proof of Social Security number, mailing address and more. The term itself is not defined.

    Molly Best, a department spokesperson, did not answer our questions about the source of the definition.

    Florida’s physical license labels the “M” field with the term “sex.” But the law on licenses uses the term “gender” to describe what is required on a license application.

    University of Florida law professor Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol questioned the interpretation. “While, to be sure, agencies issue regulations, it is very arguably beyond their purview to single-handedly reinterpret statutory law,” she said. “Especially with the attempted redefinition of ‘gender’ which, as a term of art, has a different meaning from ‘sex.’”

    Simone Chriss, a lawyer and the director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at the Southern Legal Counsel, criticized the memo as “creating a definition that doesn’t exist” in the statute. Chriss’ firm is suing Florida over other anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, including the state’s restrictions on gender-affirming care and policies regarding the use of pronouns in school that don’t align with biological sex.

    The rule change comes as the state Legislature considers H.B. 1639 and H.B. 1233, bills that would codify that a person’s license reflects a person’s “sex.”

    The bills define “sex” as “the classification of a human person as either male or female based on the organization of the body of such person for a specific reproductive role.”

    The memo also said “misrepresenting one’s gender, understood as sex, on a driver license constitutes fraud” and “subjects an offender to criminal and civil penalties, including cancellation, suspension, or revocation of his or her driver license.”

    It is uncertain under what circumstances such criminal charges could be applied or enforced. For example, how would it apply to transgender people who already have licenses that were changed to reflect their gender? Would there be consequences for people who apply for new licenses using primary documents that have already been legally changed to reflect their gender identity.

    The agency did not answer questions about this portion of the memo. Legal experts told PolitiFact said they do not expect people who got their licenses changed before the memo to face fraud charges. 

    What does Florida’s change mean for new license applicants? It’s not clear.

    Best said that the policy didn’t change the process for “establishing gender” on a new Florida license or ID. When applying for a new Florida license, residents must bring at least one primary identifying document — a passport, birth certificate, or certificate of citizenship, for example. Gender “must be taken from a primary identification document,” according to the technical advisory distributed alongside the memo.


    (Source: Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles)

    But people can change what appears as their gender on U.S. passports and, in many states, on their birth certificates, leaving open the question of how this fits in with the memo’s assertion that “misrepresenting one’s gender … constitutes fraud.” 

    In response to PolitiFact’s questions, Best said, “In Florida, you do not get to play identity politics with your driver license,” and that “to obtain a license … requires satisfactory proof of identity, including your biological sex.”

    Best directed us to a department website that explains what documents people need when applying for driver’s licenses. The law requires “satisfactory” proof of identity including name and “gender.” We found no evidence, however, that Florida law requires proof of one’s biological sex in order to obtain a new ID or license. 

    The implications for transgender residents

    LGBTQ+ advocates say the Florida highway safety department’s change could risk trans people’s privacy and open them to discrimination or prejudice.

    “If you can’t update the gender marker on your ID, you are essentially outed as transgender at every turn,” said Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. This can happen during interactions with potential landlords, employers, cashiers, bartenders, restaurant servers and more.

    “You risk being subjected to discrimination by strangers on a regular basis,” Heng-Lehtinen said. 

    By having to present an ID that doesn’t match how someone appears or refers to themselves, they might face invasive personal questions in job interviews or be questioned by police at a traffic stop about whether their ID is fraudulent, advocates said.

    According to the Movement Advancement Project, a non profit think tank that tracks LGBTQ+ policies, most states have some mechanism for changing the “M” or “F” on licenses, but states such as Iowa are considering laws to restrict that. Other states are considering laws that would formally define “sex” and “gender” or block people from amending their birth certificates to reflect their gender identity.



    Source

  • Fact Check: GOP claims that Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas is ‘responsible’ for fentanyl crisis are false

    In their failed push to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, some House Republicans focused on the fentanyl crisis. They made it a central part of their effort to prove he willfully shirked his duty to secure and monitor the U.S.-Mexico border, through which much of the synthetic opioids consumed in the U.S. flow. 

    In a Jan. 19 impeachment hearing, U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Mayorkas and his border policy is “personally responsible” for fentanyl, a dangerously powerful and cheaply made synthetic opioid, coming across the southern border.

    “(Fentanyl) comes from China, and they make it in Mexico, and they kill our children here. Two hundred thousand — more than Vietnam, World War II,” he said. “I have seen it personally, the destruction it does every five minutes. It is a fentanyl superhighway, and (Secretary Mayorkas’) border policy is personally responsible for it.”

    The border “is a fentanyl superhighway, and (Secretary Mayorkas’) border policy is personally responsible for it,” said McCaul, who represents a district that stretches from Austin to Houston.

    McCaul has tied Mayorkas to the fentanyl overdose death toll in the U.S. in several other media appearances, including Jan. 28 on “Fox News Sunday.”

    “Two hundred million people (are) dead now, thanks to fentanyl poisoning that this one man (Mayorkas) is responsible for,” McCaul said. (A spokesperson for McCaul told us he meant to say 200,000 people have died of fentanyl overdoses during President Joe Biden’s term, a statistic he correctly stated in the impeachment hearing.)

    More than 190,000 Americans have died of overdoses from fentanyl during the Biden administration — more than in the previous decade, according to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it’s wrong to solely blame Mayorkas for a crisis that has roots in the 1990s, opioid policy experts said.

    Border policies are shaped by both the Department of Homeland Security chief, the president and Congress, not just by Mayorkas. (PolitiFact has ruled as false claims that Biden’s border policies are to blame for U.S. fentanyl deaths.)

    Although Border Patrol agents seize a small percentage of illicitly produced fentanyl, the vast majority of the drug enters the country in vehicles driven by U.S. citizens, Customs and Border Protection and sentencing data shows. 

    Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution think thank who co-directs its series “The Opioid Crisis in America: Domestic and International Dimensions,” said congressional funding for more vehicle scanners would significantly reduce the amount of fentanyl that comes into the U.S. — and that is outside of Mayorkas’ control.

    Most fentanyl in U.S. comes through legal ports of entry

    Felbab-Brown, an internationally recognized international crime and foreign policy expert, said the fentanyl influx in the U.S. couldn’t be blamed on Mayorkas or the Biden administration.

    This is because the vast majority of fentanyl seizures — more than 90% — happen at official ports of entry, as the same CBP dataset shows.

    These drugs are smuggled almost entirely in vehicles driven by U.S. citizens, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data, not by illegal immigrants wading through the Rio Grande.

    As PolitiFact has previously found, drug smugglers prefer to traffic fentanyl and other illicit substances in cargo trucks to reduce risk of loss and waste. 

    The quantities smuggled into the country away from legal ports of entry, however, are still significant. In House testimony that McCaul’s office referred to as evidence for his claim, National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd stated that Biden’s border policies have led to a historically high number of “got-aways,” or people who were found to be crossing the border illegally but evaded apprehension. However, the estimated annual apprehension rate of undocumented migrants under Mayorkas has averaged 78%, identical to that of the Trump administration, per a Jan. 28 DHS memo.

    Judd also noted Border Patrol seized about 3,243 pounds of fentanyl in Biden’s first two years in office, which means hundreds of millions of lethal doses of the synthetic opioid were brought into the country outside of legal ports of entry. The National Border Patrol Council  is the Border Patrol union.

    But given a far higher quantity of fentanyl comes in cargo vehicles, the best tool we have to combat fentanyl trafficking is the use of large, noninvasive cargo scanners, Felbab-Brown said. And only Congress can allocate funds to CBP to buy new scanners or add border patrol agents.

    Historically, about 2% of passenger vehicles and 17% of cargo trucks have been inspected, significantly limiting detection capability, per an October 2023 White House memo. 

    To increase fentanyl seizures, Mayorkas and the Biden administration are requesting 123 new large-scale scanners with a goal of scanning 70% of cargo trucks by 2026. The drive-through machines use X-ray technology to scan a vehicle’s full contents in about eight minutes, compared with two hours for physical inspections that CBP has traditionally used, the memo said. 

    The Biden administration and Mayorkas worked with a bipartisan group of senators for months to draft a border security package that would include funding for those scanners and allocate money for additional Border Patrol agents. The Senate reached a deal on the bill Feb. 4 but House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the legislation would be “dead on arrival” if it reaches his chamber.

    It’s another reason that claims Mayorkas is responsible for all fentanyl coming through the border don’t hold up, Andrew Kolodny, medical director for the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University, told the Austin American-Statesman and PolitiFact.

    “Congress should be appropriating funds to help with fentanyl detection,” Kolodny said. “It’s hypocritical to blame Biden fentanyl coming in from Mexico if Congress is not appropriating funds that could help with interdiction.”

    Danny W. Davis, a professor at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service who specializes in homeland and national security, said scanners are “a necessary piece, but just one piece of the puzzle” to prevent drug smuggling. 

    “Is (Mayorkas) responsible for every gram of fentanyl that comes across? No,” he said. “But he is responsible for securing the border.”

    In response to requests for comment, McCaul did not restate his previous claims that Mayorkas is responsible for fentanyl deaths or fentanyl that enters the U.S. border.

    “Secretary Mayorkas — as the head of the Department of Homeland Security — is responsible for the porous southern border,” McCaul wrote in a statement. “His rescission of successful policies and refusal to enforce our nation’s laws has directly led to the chaos and death plaguing our state, as border patrol agents tell me each and every time I visit South Texas.” (Read McCaul’s full statement here.)

    Despite Judd’s past criticism as head of the National Border Patrol Council, the union endorsed the bipartisan border package Monday, saying it is “far better than the status quo.” 

    As evidence for his claim, McCaul’s office also pointed PolitiFact to an article from a news website run by the conservative Heritage Foundation that quoted National Border Patrol Council  spokesman Chris Cabrera stating “It has made (the cartels’) job a whole lot easier,” seemingly in response to a question about drug cartels and the Biden administration’s changes in border policy. The article provides no evidence for McCaul’s specific claim about Mayorkas and fentanyl. It also includes an X post in which Cabrera writes, “When is Congress going to wake up and get to work on the problems along our southern border?” 

    Congress, president help shape homeland security policy

    The DHS secretary is the top Homeland Security official and an appointed member of the president’s Cabinet. His job is to oversee enforcement of U.S. laws and executive orders relating to border security, immigration, cybersecurity, disaster response and national and economic security — a role that requires cooperation with “federal, state, local, international and private sector partners,” the DHS website says.  

    Congress passes the laws that the DHS must enforce and sets the department’s budget with stipulations for how money can be spent, limiting how much influence any individual secretary can have. Executive orders from the White House also direct the agency’s actions, though they are superseded by federal laws.

    As such, high-level policy changes are shaped by Mayorkas and Biden, not one or the other.

    One major change Biden’s administration made was to end Title 42, which allowed the U.S. to expel migrants without considering their requests for asylum, in May 2023. The administration also shifted from detaining all apprehended migrants to allowing some of them to remain in the country while awaiting asylum hearings, which critics call “catch and release.”

    As DHS head, Mayorkas has led operations targeting cartels, U.S. distributors

    Preventing and fighting fentanyl smuggling is a multinational, multiagency affair, requiring cooperation among Mexican law enforcement officials, the Chinese government and countless other organizations. 

    Also, many different federal and state entities, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, share responsibility with DHS for investigating, arresting and prosecuting suspected criminals and smugglers, Davis noted. 

    “You can’t just say the Homeland Security Department has all responsibility,” he said.

    Over the past three years, Mayorkas has overseen several undercover operations targeting cartels in Mexico and domestic fentanyl distributors in the U.S., such as Operation Sentinel, as USA Today has reported. 

    In a letter responding to the House Homeland Security Committee’s impeachment allegations, Mayorkas said more than 14,000 smugglers had been arrested during his tenure and “thousands have been prosecuted under federal law.”

    The letter also said, “DHS has seized more fentanyl and arrested more individuals for fentanyl-related crimes in the last two years than in the previous five years combined.”

    Mayorkas does not completely control other factors that affect fentanyl smuggling, such as negotiations with China, which ships chemical precursors for the drugs to Mexico. Biden negotiated a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping last year to help reduce those shipments. 

    Fentanyl crisis has roots in 1990s opioid epidemic

    Medicine and public policy experts have explained that the fentanyl crisis’s roots go far deeper than what Mayorkas or any one official controls.

    “We have a fentanyl problem because there’s an epidemic of opioid use disorder in the United States and it’s coming into demand for millions of people who are addicted to opioids,” Kolodny said.

    The opioid epidemic began in the 1990s, long before Mayorkas became DHS secretary, and largely involved prescription opioids. After President George W. Bush’s administration cracked down on pills, Mexican cartels rushed to fill that vacuum with heroin. Synthetic opioids — a cheaper alternative to heroin and pills — began to flood the market in the early 2010s, during President Barack Obama’s administration. 

    Synthetic opioid-related deaths started to sharply increase in 2013 and skyrocketed during President Donald Trump’s administration, jumping from more than 28,000 in 2017 to 57,000 in 2020, according to CDC data. These deaths continued climbing during Biden’s term, with more than two-thirds of 106,699 overdose deaths in 2021 — 71,689 — resulting from synthetic opioid use. 

    Kolodny has criticized the Obama and Trump administrations’ federal response to fentanyl and said the Food and Drug Administration failed to sufficiently regulate opioid manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.

    Our ruling

    McCaul said during an impeachment hearing that Mayorkas’ border policy is “personally responsible” for fentanyl crossing the border.

    The opioid epidemic has roots in the 1990s, and illicitly-produced fentanyl began flooding U.S. markets long before Mayorkas became DHS chief. 

    Although more migrants have tried to enter the U.S. under Mayorkas’ watch, the vast majority of fentanyl enters the country in vehicles driven by U.S. citizens through legal ports of entry, CBP and other data show. Noninvasive scanners are the best option for seizing fentanyl shipments, experts say, but Congress has so far declined to approve requests from Biden and Mayorkas for funding to purchase them.

    Under Mayorkas, the DHS has led several efforts to target domestic networks and outside cartels, and fostered greater cooperation with Mexico to enforce laws against drug trafficking, experts said. 

    We rate the claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Did George Soros or Klaus Schwab’s father work for Hitler? Here’s what we know

    If you haven’t seen a false claim related to billionaire philanthropist George Soros or World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab in a while (we doubt it), look no further: A recent Instagram post has both.

    The Jan. 30 photo posted on the platform played into rehashed accusations: “George Soros worked for Hitler. Klaus Schwab’s father also worked for Hitler.”

    Screenshot from Instagram

    The 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.)

    As fact-checkers have previously reported, neither man worked for Adolf Hitler. 

    Soros was too young to have worked for Hitler

    Soros was a Holocaust survivor, according to a profile by The New York Times. Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1930, three years before the fascist party took control of Germany and the Holocaust started.

    German forces invaded Hungary in 1944, when Soros was 13, and his father obtained false identities for him and his brother. According to Reuters, Soros would not have been old enough to become a Nazi party soldier; by the time he was 17, the Allies had defeated Nazi Germany in World War II.

    Eugen Schwab’s records do not prove he worked for Hitler 

    As for Schwab, fact checkers previously analyzed claims about his father, and found mixed evidence about his activities during the Nazi regime. 

    Klaus Schwab named his parents, Eugen Wilhelm Schwab and Erika Epprecht, in his book, “Stakeholder Capitalism.” 

    International fact-checkers examining similar claims obtained Eugen Schwab’s denazification files, which stemmed from identifying Nazis and determining their punishment. Many people who participated in Nazi activities were not punished.

    David Bete, who handles files at the Sigmaringen department of the Baden-Württemberg State Archives, told PolitiFact that Eugen Schwab’s two denazification files “do not contain any information saying that Schwab worked for Hitler.”

    History experts told Agence France-Presse and Deutsche Presse-Agentur that Eugen Schwab’s denazification files do not show he was a member of the Nazi party, and the committee acquitted him. 

    Denazification also often relied on self-reported information from citizens, and Deutsche Presse-Agentur noted that it was “not certain whether Schwab was telling the truth.”

    In the forthcoming book “The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing will Crater the Global Financial System,” New York University professor Paul H. Tice wrote that Eugen Schwab “actively supported the German war effort during World War II.” (ESG stands for environmental, social and governance.)

    Eugen Schwab was the commercial manager of Escher Wyss’ Ravensburg factory, which supplied military equipment to the Wehrmacht, or the armed forces of the Third Reich. The plant employed about 200 forced laborers from nearby Nazi camps. 

    Bete said Schwab claimed he was “declared unreliable by state officials” after the July 1944 failed assassination attempt on Hitler and was removed from his job at Escher Wyss. But Bete noted that the records cannot prove this claim.

    Tice said Hitler awarded the company’s Ravensburg branch with the title of “National Socialist Model Company.” Dr. Christian Marx, economic historian at the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur that many companies received this award, and the designation “says little” of the relationship between business leaders and Nazi leadership.

    Niels Weise, a researcher at the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, told Agence France-Presse that even if Escher Wyss used forced labor, it “could not be attributed to a special relationship between the commercial manager and Hitler.”

    The World Economic Forum public affairs team told PolitiFact that the claim is inaccurate. The forum and Klaus Schwab have been a common target of conspiracy theories. 

    Our ruling

    An Instagram post claimed that George Soros and Klaus Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, worked for Hitler.

    Soros was born three years before the Nazi party took control of Germany, and would’ve been too young to be a Nazi soldier. His father obtained false identities for his family’s survival.

    There is mixed evidence about Eugen Schwab’s activities during the Nazi regime, but there is no conclusive proof that he was a member of the Nazi party or worked for Hitler. He managed Escher Wyss’ Ravensburg factory, which supplied military equipment to the Third Reich and was awarded “National Socialist Model Company,” but an expert noted that designation “says little” of the relationship between awardees and Nazi leadership. 

    Ultimately, we found no proof that either George Soros or Klaus Schwab’s father worked for Hitler. We rate that claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: NYC will give migrant families debit, not credit, cards for food

    Credit or debit? This familiar checkout counter question is at the heart of misinformation about a new program that aims to help migrant families in New York City.

    Social media posts claim officials in the nation’s most populous city have approved a plan to give credit cards to migrants who have arrived in the city in recent months. A Feb. 2 Facebook post said, “NYC to give ILLEGALS $53 Million in Prepaid Credit Cards.”

    The claim has been amplified by prominent figures including Elon Musk, the CEO of X, who described the plan as “insane.”

    The Facebook 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.)

    As New York buckles under the weight of a surge in migrants arriving in the city, most of whom entered the U.S. illegally and are applying for asylum, local officials are looking for ways to support them. One such plan is to give migrant families what they have termed “immediate response cards” — prepaid debit cards to be used “only for food and baby supplies,” Mayor Eric Adams said.

    It will begin as a pilot program with 500 families and may replace the current process of giving migrants nonperishable food boxes. 

    The mayor’s Chief of Staff Camille Joseph Varlack said at a city forum that the cards will be loaded with $12.52 per person per day; a city spokesperson also told The Associated Press the cards would last for 28 days, and migrants will have to attest that the card will be used in local supermarkets. If the pilot succeeds, the city plans to grow it. City records show New York has earmarked $53 million for the program and its expansion.

    But social media posts claiming the cards are credit cards are wrong. They are prepaid debit cards. They may look the same, but they are not.

    The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau describes prepaid cards and debit cards as “ways to spend money you already have.” Prepaid cards are a form of debit cards, but unlike traditional debit cards, they are not connected to a bank or credit union account. Migrants without a government identity card or Social Security number have limited access to banking services.

    With credit cards, “you are borrowing money, and you must repay it on the payment due date,” the agency said. Credit card issuers require personal information such as a Social Security number, and people in the U.S. illegally generally cannot obtain one.

    Prepaid debit cards already distribute government benefits. The federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, for example uses a form of prepaid debit known as Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) to help low-income families buy food.

    A prepaid credit card is an oxymoron — you cannot borrow money you already have. Several news outlets including the New York Post and NewsNation that have reported on the plan incorrectly described the cards as prepaid credit cards.

    “This is not an American Express card we are giving folks,” Adams said. He said the program would stimulate the local economy and save the city millions from the elimination of delivery fees and food waste.

    Our ruling

    An Instagram post said “NYC to give ILLEGALS $53 Million in Prepaid Credit Cards.”

    New York has earmarked $53 million for food and baby supplies for migrants, most of whom entered the U.S. illegally and are applying for asylum. The city is piloting a program that gives 500 migrant families prepaid debit cards, not credit cards, to purchase these items. The program could replace the current process of giving migrants nonperishable food boxes and is not unlike the way government benefits are already distributed to help people living in poverty buy food.

    We rate the claim that New York is giving people in the country illegally $53 million in prepaid credit cards Mostly False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Tucker Carlson wasn’t added to Ukrainian ‘hit list” after Vladimir Putin interview

    What do Tucker Carlson and Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters have in common?

    According to social media posts, both have been targeted for inclusion on a “kill list” backed by the Ukrainian government.

    After Carlson, the former Fox News host, traveled to Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Feb. 7 Instagram video claimed that “Ukraine puts Tucker Carlson on a ‘hit list’ after an interview with Vladimir Putin.”

    A woman in the video claimed that after Carlson teased the interview in a Feb. 6 X video, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy added Carlson to Ukraine’s kill list, “essentially putting a hit out on his life.”

    She referred to a Ukrainian website called Myrotvorets, which she said was run by Kyiv and backed by Washington. She shared a screenshot of a May 2023 article headline from the website The MintPress. 

    What is Myrotvorets?

    Myrotvorets, which translates to “Peacemaker” in English, describes itself in English at the top of its website as “a non-government center for research of elements of crimes against the National Security of Ukraine, peace, humanity and the international law.”

    The website claims to provide information for law enforcement and special services about “pro-Russian terrorists, separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.”

    The Myrotvorets Center was founded in 2014, and its website lists the personal information of people it considers Ukraine’s enemies. It lists Russian military personnel, but also celebrities such as Carlson and rock musician Waters, who was described as an “anti-Ukrainian propagandist” when added to the list in 2018. 

    Carlson was added to the list in 2023, as the entry shows, so he wasn’t put on the website as a result of his February interview with Putin.

    Nothing on the Myrotvorets Center’s Carlson entry calls for Carlson to be harmed or killed, although other parts of the website use incendiary language, such as, “Russians and other enemies should be killed” and “the invaders on Ukrainian soil must be destroyed like rabid cattle!” according to a Google translation. Some on the list who are dead — including former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who died of natural causes in June at age 86 — have the word “liquidated” pasted over their photos.

    Among the allegations listed against Carlson, based on a Google translation, are that he is “a helper of the Russian invaders and terrorists,” “is an anti-Ukrainian propagandist” and “showed public support for Russian aggression and murder of Ukrainian citizens.”

    At the bottom of Carlson’s and other entries, a line asks law enforcement agencies to consider the entry as a “statement that this citizen committed a deliberate act against the national security of Ukraine.”

    The website has targeted other journalists. Among them is Andrew Kramer, the Kyiv bureau chief for The New York Times, one of thousands of journalists added to the list in 2016 for applying for press passes to work in areas controlled by the Donetsk People’s Republic, who are Russian-backed rebels.

    In a 2016 first-person account for The Times, Kramer described Myrotvorets as a “Ukrainian nationalist website” that has “close ties to the Ukrainian government.” (He did not explain those ties.) 

    Then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko condemned the leak of the reporters’ information, but the country’s interior minister and other officials welcomed the leak, according to The Associated Press.

    There is no evidence the website has the U.S. government’s backing, as the Instagram post alleges, despite the website listing “Langley, VA, USA” as a location. 

    We reached out to the State Department but didn’t immediately hear back. A 2022 report on human rights practices in Ukraine said the website’s disclosure of journalists’ private information led to harassment. It said the site “reportedly maintains close ties to the country’s security services,” but didn’t specify what those ties are.

    It’s unclear who started or currently runs the site. But George Tuka, a former Ukrainian politician whom the Times of London referred to as one of Myrotvorets’ “founding figures,” told the news site in 2022 that Myrotvorets is not funded by Ukraine, nor controlled by its state intelligence service. 

    Two experts on Ukraine told PolitiFact there’s no evidence the website is tied to Ukraine’s government.

    Taras Fedirko, a University of Glasgow political and economic anthropologist, said the site is a “right-wing propaganda outlet” and described it as a publicity stunt. He said there’s “no evidence Myrotvorets is connected in any way” to Ukraine’s current government.

    Fedirko said when the website started in 2014, it was rumored to be connected to Anton Gerashchenko, then a member of Ukraine’s Parliament. Gerashchenko was later a deputy to former Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who served under Zelenskyy until 2021. 

    Fedirko described Gerashchenko as “by now a marginal figure in Ukraine’s volatile political life.” 

    Eugene Bondarenko, a University of Michigan professor who studies modern Ukrainian culture, said Myrotvorets has “been in hot water with the Ukrainian government.” referring to the condemnation by Ukraine’s former president for listing journalists. Bondarenko noted the Myrotvorets site is written in Russian, not Ukrainian, and “lists people, public officials and public figures, who are hostile to Ukraine, as the people who run this site see it.” 

    Is the website a hit list?

    Whatever the site’s intentions, there have been people named on the list who were later killed, according to news reports.

    Stanislav Rzhitsky, a Russian captain alleged to have killed 20 Ukrainian civilians in a missile strike, was shot to death in July 2023 in southern Russia. His address and personal information had been posted on Myrotvorets in 2022, The Associated Press reported.

    Kramer, The New York Times reporter, said a pro-Russian commentator in Kyiv was killed near his home in 2015 days after his home address was listed on Myrotvorets.

    Bondarenko said although people’s risk of harm increases anytime they’re doxxed, Ukraine’s security services wouldn’t need a site like this if it wanted someone taken out. They would “just go and get them.”

    Our ruling

    An Instagram post claimed that Ukraine added Carlson to an online hit list because of his interview with Putin. Carlson was listed as an “anti-Ukraine propagandist” on a site called Myrotvorets, but nothing in his entry called for him to be killed or harmed. He was added to the site in 2023, not after his Putin interview.

    It’s unclear who runs the website, and it appears there were past ties to some Ukrainian leaders. But experts we spoke with said the site is not tied to the current Ukrainian government. We rate the claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Trump says he ‘cooperated far more’ than Biden in classified documents cases. Pants on Fire!

    After the Justice Department said it would not pursue criminal charges against President Joe Biden for retaining classified documents, former President Donald Trump compared it with his own documents case and cried foul.

    “I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more,” Trump wrote in a Feb. 8 statement.

    It will be up to a jury to decide whether Trump did “nothing wrong.” But his statement that he cooperated far more than Biden is absurd.

    Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated Biden, summarized Trump’s lack of cooperation in a report about Biden’s case.

    “Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite,” Hur wrote. “According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.” 

    Trump’s spokesperson did not respond to PolitiFact for this fact-check. 

    Biden’s lawyers alerted federal officials to the documents 

    A timeline of the Biden investigation that PolitiFact created based on news reports and statements by Biden lawyers showed that his lawyers quickly alerted federal officials after finding the documents. Biden also cooperated with federal law enforcement searches of his homes and offices.

    Nov. 2, 2022: Biden’s lawyers discovered documents, some classified, in a locked closet at Biden’s post-vice presidential office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C. They found the documents while cleaning out the office. That same day, the White House Counsel’s Office notified the National Archives and Records Administration and the agency took the materials Nov. 3.

    Nov. 14, 2022: Attorney General Merrick Garland directed John Lausch, a U.S. attorney in Chicago, to conduct an initial investigation. 

    At some point in November 2022: The FBI searched the Penn Biden Center with the Biden team’s consent, according to Jan. 31, 2023, news reports by CBS and other outlets that did not name sources. CNN reported that a search warrant was not used, which is a sign that Biden’s team cooperated.

    Dec. 20, 2022: Biden’s personal attorneys searched his Wilmington, Delaware, home’s garage and found more records. The attorneys notified Lausch so the Justice Department could arrange to take the documents. 

    Jan. 12, 2023: Garland appointed Hur as special counsel.

    January and February 2023: On Jan. 20, 2023, the FBI searched Biden’s Wilmington home and found more documents. A Feb. 1, 2023, search of Biden’s home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware turned up no classified documents. In a statement about the Feb. 1 search, Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer said that DOJ “sought to do this work without advance public notice, and we agreed to cooperate.”

    Oct. 8-9, 2023: Biden sat for a voluntary interview with Hur. The interview “lasted more than five hours,” Hur wrote, and Biden “provided written answers to most of our additional written questions.”

    Court records show Trump failed to cooperate 

    The Trump timeline​​ we wrote based on news reports and court records of his charges showed that Trump tried to thwart federal officials.

    May 6, 2021: National Archives and Records Administration’s chief counsel emailed Trump’s representatives seeking missing records, a search warrant showed. 

    December 2021: A search warrant stated that NARA continued to make requests of Trump representatives until late December, when the agency was advised that 12 boxes were ready for retrieval.

    January 2022: The National Archives retrieved 15 boxes of records from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, Florida, home. The National Archives said Trump had “torn up” some of the presidential records.

    April 29 and May 1, 2022: A lawyer wrote letters on Trump’s behalf requesting that the National Archives delay the disclosure to the FBI of the retrieved records. Acting archivist Debra Steidel Wall denied this request and stated that the boxes contained “over 100 documents with classified markings, comprising 700 pages.”

    May 11, 2022: Trump accepted a grand jury subpoena seeking classified documents. The indictment states that Trump told his attorney, “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes” and “What happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?” and “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?”

    Between May 23 and June 2, 2022: At Trump’s direction, his personal aide Walter Nauta moved 64 boxes from a Mar-a-Lago storage room to Trump’s residence, according to the indictment.

    June 2, 2022: A Trump attorney reviewed the documents in the Mar-a-Lago storage room and met with Trump. The attorney said that Trump made a plucking motion and told the attorney he should take the documents to his hotel room, and if there was anything “really bad in there,” pluck it out.

    June 3, 2022: Justice Department officials briefly met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and retrieved more documents marked classified. A Trump lawyer signed a declaration saying that all the materials marked classified were turned over. But investigators later learned there were more records and that same month subpoenaed Trump again, seeking surveillance footage. 

    Aug. 8, 2022: The FBI, with a search warrant, searched Mar-a-Lago, removing 25 more boxes of documents. Days later, Garland said that the Justice Department had exhausted efforts to retrieve the material in other ways. “Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.” The indictment said that the search followed Trump’s refusal to cede records. 

    Trump indictment details his lack of cooperation

    Trump was indicted in June 2023 on about three dozen counts, including charges of willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements. 

    “Trump endeavored to obstruct the FBI and the grand jury investigations and conceal his continued retention of classified documents,” the indictment said. It said Trump did this by:

    • “Suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena.”

    • Directing Nauta “to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI and the grand jury.” (Nauta was also charged.)

    • “Suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents” called for by the subpoena.

    • Giving the FBI and the grand jury some of the documents called for by the subpoena “while claiming he was cooperating fully.”

    • Causing the submission of a certification to the FBI and grand jury “falsely representing” that all documents had been produced.

    Our ruling

    Comparing himself with Biden, Trump said, “I cooperated far more” in his classified documents investigation.
    Government records rebut his statement. 

    Biden lawyers alerted federal officials on the same day they found the documents, and Biden cooperated with searches and sat for an interview for the special counsel’s investigation. 

    Trump’s indictment shows he failed to cooperate on multiple occasions. He refused to return documents for months and enlisted others to hide or destroy evidence. Trump once asked his attorney, according to the indictment, “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” His lack of cooperation culminated in an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022.

    It’s ridiculous for Trump to state that he cooperated more than Biden.

    We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: Biden won’t be charged in classified documents case, but special counsel report questions his memory



    Source

  • Fact Check: Experts say mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, not caused mass deaths

    In the more than three years since COVID-19 vaccines first became available, billions of doses have been administered worldwide, protecting against severe disease and death. Still, social media posts claim the vaccines are causing more harm than good.

    A Feb. 4 Instagram post shared a headline from conservative news outlet The Epoch Times that said, “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines caused more deaths than saved: study.”

    Another Instagram post shared a related headline that said, “Scientists call for global moratorium on mRNA vaccines, immediate removal from childhood schedule.” The headline was from the Children’s Health Defense, a legal advocacy organization known for spreading vaccine misinformation. (The organization was created by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who earned PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year for his movement to legitimize conspiracy theories.)

    These Instagram posts were 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.)

    (Screengrab from Instagram)

    The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense articles referred to a Jan. 24 research paper that said “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by” the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Two of the paper’s authors, Steve Kirsch and Peter McCullough, have often spread misinformation related to COVID-19 and the vaccine.

    Experts on infectious diseases and vaccines told PolitiFact that the paper’s conclusion is based on misleading and false information about the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The paper repeats multiple claims that PolitiFact and other fact-checkers have debunked.

    The paper “stands in contrast” to the global public health community’s consensus that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, said William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University infectious diseases professor.

    “And so, you have to ask why (the paper) is such an outlier,” said Schaffner, who is also a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The reason it’s an outlier is … it’s a deeply flawed study.”

    Paper’s claims about deaths

    The peer-reviewed research paper was published on Cureus, which Schaffner called “an obscure journal” that he’d never heard of in his 40 years of public health research. A 2022 Emory University study described Cureus as a “predatory” and “controversial” journal.

    The paper claimed the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine saved two lives and caused 27 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations. It said the Moderna vaccine saved 3.9 lives and caused 10.8 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations.

    The paper’s authors based this conclusion on data from the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials in the United States and reports of adverse effects from the United Kingdom. Although the datasets came from two different countries, the paper said, “it is unlikely that the adverse event rates would be different between the two populations.”

    The adverse effects reports came from the U.K.’s Yellow Card system, which lets members of the public report suspected safety concerns related to vaccines, medicines and medical devices.

    This system is similar to the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which the paper also cites to suggest the COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe.

    With VAERS, anyone can report health effects after a vaccination, whether or not those effects are caused by the vaccine, the CDC said. And unlike other government data sources, these reports aren’t screened before they’re made public, making VAERS fertile ground for vaccine misinformation.

    Paper relies on several debunked claims

    The paper claims the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not undergo adequate safety and efficacy testing.

    This is inaccurate. We have rated multiple claims about this False or Pants on Fire, including  that mRNA technology was never tested in humans; that the vaccines were released after only two months of testing in healthy humans; and that a safe vaccine can’t be developed in eight to 10 months.

    The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were thoroughly evaluated in clinical trials before receiving emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December 2020. Since then, public health authorities have continued to closely monitor the vaccines’ safety.

    “These vaccines have met rigorous scientific standards for safety and effectiveness. The available data continue to demonstrate that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh their risks,” said Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson.

    Another claim in the paper is mRNA vaccines contain “DNA contamination.” We previously fact-checked a similar claim and rated it False.

    Decades of research has shown that the “biologically insignificant amounts of DNA” in the vaccines pose no known safety risk, said Dan Wilson, senior associate scientist at Janssen, which also developed a COVID-19 vaccine. Wilson also hosts “Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson,” a YouTube show that covers science misinformation.

    It’s not unusual for vaccines to contain DNA fragments. The measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and rotavirus vaccines also have minuscule amounts of DNA, said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and infectious diseases physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

    The chance that these DNA fragments could integrate into a person’s DNA is “zero,” Offit said. “So, it’s just all a lot of hand-waving.”

    The paper also claims the spike proteins produced by COVID-19 vaccination linger in the body and cause adverse effects. PolitiFact has fact-checked several false claims that the spike proteins are harmful or toxic.

    All coronaviruses, including COVID-19, have spikes known as spike proteins on their surfaces, which the viruses use to bind to cells and cause infection, the CDC said.

    The mRNA vaccines contain neither the COVID-19 virus nor the spike protein. The vaccines’ mRNA technology gives the body genetic instructions for producing copies of the spike protein, which are harmless. Then, the body breaks down the mRNA and it leaves the body as waste.

    The spike proteins trigger the body’s immune response, sparking antibody production. This helps the body recognize and fight off the real COVID-19 virus in future infections.

    Schaffner said the spike protein claim is “far-fetched” because there’s no evidence the spike protein produced from the vaccines has caused adverse effects.

    COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives

    Public health authorities in the U.S. and worldwide have repeatedly found COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and effective.

    The World Health Organization reported that as of November, more than 13 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had been administered worldwide. In the U.S. alone, more than 676 million doses of the vaccine had been administered as of May. 

    In 2021, the first full year the vaccines were widely available, the WHO estimated that COVID-19 vaccinations saved more than 14.4 million lives worldwide.

    In rare instances, adverse effects, including myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, have been linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC said. Myocarditis cases were more common among adolescent and young men within a week of receiving a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Most patients had mild cases and recovered quickly.

    Our ruling

    An Instagram post claimed a research paper shows that “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines caused more deaths” than lives saved.

    Experts said the paper’s conclusion is based on false and misleading claims. These claims have been repeatedly fact-checked and rated False by PolitiFact and other news outlets.

    The COVID-19 vaccines have been rigorously tested and monitored for years and public health authorities worldwide continue to find them safe and effective. Billions of doses have been administered worldwide. The vaccines have saved millions of lives, and adverse effects are rare.

    We rate this claim Pants on Fire!



    Source