Category: Fact Check

  • Faulty Science Underpins Florida Surgeon General’s Call to Halt mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination

    The COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, according to multiple studies. Getting the latest vaccine provides additional protection against poor outcomes from COVID-19. Serious side effects are rare, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration judge that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

    Despite this, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo issued a statement on Jan. 3 calling for a halt in the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, made by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna.

    Ladapo cited unsubstantiated concerns that the small amounts of residual DNA left over in the vaccines from the manufacturing process could integrate into human DNA. “If the risks of DNA integration have not been assessed for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings,” he said.

    As we have written, there’s no evidence that residual DNA, which is expected and present within regulatory limits, can integrate into vaccinated people’s DNA.

    (For more about residual DNA in mRNA vaccines, read our article “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Alter DNA, Cause Cancer.”)

    In a Dec. 14 letter sent to Ladapo, FDA official Dr. Peter Marks said it was “quite implausible” that residual DNA could make its way into the nucleus of a cell and integrate into chromosomal DNA there. “We would like to make clear that based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process, FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines,” Marks wrote.

    Residual DNA is present in a variety of vaccines. For residual DNA in the mRNA vaccines to get into a person’s DNA and have health effects would require an entire series of unlikely or implausible events. These steps would include getting around the body’s many defenses against DNA showing up in abnormal locations.

    Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, addressed claims about residual DNA in videos, saying that “it’s virtually impossible for these DNA fragments to do any harm. They are clinically and utterly harmless.” He told Medpage Today, “It is hard to believe that Dr. Ladapo actually issued that statement,” referring to Ladapo’s recent call for a halt in the use of the mRNA vaccines.

    Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo speaks during a September 2021 press conference. Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images.

    Ladapo, appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis as Florida surgeon general in September 2021, has spread COVID-19 misinformation and presided over unfounded and increasingly expansive recommendations against COVID-19 vaccination in his state. In 2022, the Florida Department of Health recommended against COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children ages 5 to 17, as well as children under 5. The same year, Ladapo recommended against mRNA COVID-19 vaccination for males ages 18 to 39, based on a heavily flawed analysis of cardiac deaths by the Florida Department of Health. Ladapo later was found to have edited the study to make the vaccines appear more dangerous.

    In September 2023, he recommended against updated COVID-19 vaccines for Floridians under age 65. Then, in October, he called recommendations for the updated vaccines “anti-human” and said as a doctor he would be “very uncomfortable” recommending them to anyone.

    Ladapo initially wrote to FDA and CDC officials about residual DNA-related concerns in a Dec. 6 letter. He cited a 2007 FDA guidance document on DNA vaccines that contain plasmids, a form of circular DNA, incorrectly claiming that the agency’s recommendations for assessing the risk of DNA from such vaccines integrating into the genome also apply to the mRNA vaccines. No DNA vaccines are yet on the market in the U.S.

    The guidance is not relevant, Marks wrote in his Dec. 14 response letter. “This guidance was developed for DNA vaccines themselves, not for DNA as a contaminant in other vaccines, and is not applicable to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.”

    Despite this clarification, Ladapo responded to the FDA letter by calling for a halt in the use of the mRNA vaccines while continuing to incorrectly claim that the FDA had gone against its own recommendations. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have always played it fast and loose with COVID-19 vaccine safety, but their failure to test for DNA integration with the human genome – as their own guidelines dictate – when the vaccines are known to be contaminated with foreign DNA is intolerable,” Ladapo said in a Jan. 3 post on X, the platform previously known as Twitter.

    As we’ve also previously written, DNA is the primary ingredient of DNA vaccines, while it is only present in residual amounts in the mRNA vaccines. For DNA vaccines to work, there needs to be a mechanism to get the DNA into the nucleus of a cell. The mRNA vaccines, however, contain primarily mRNA, which only needs to get into the body of a cell.

    Even with DNA vaccines, DNA integration is only a theoretical risk and has not been shown to be a safety problem. The FDA guidance only recommends doing integration studies in animals for DNA vaccines — in which genomic DNA in various tissues is analyzed for signs of integration — if a certain level of plasmid is shown to persist in animal tissue.

    Nevertheless, the available data on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines show no sign of genomic disruption. Marks described animal studies that “demonstrate no evidence for genotoxicity from the vaccine,” meaning that they did not see evidence that chromosomal DNA had been damaged. 

    “Moreover, we now have access to global surveillance data on over one billion doses of the mRNA vaccines that have been given, and there is nothing to indicate harm to the genome, such as increased rates of cancers,” Marks said.


    Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

    Source

  • Fact Check: Trump’s new ‘evidence’ that Biden lost in 2020 is ridiculously wrong (and dusty). We went through it

    More than three years after the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump is claiming, again, to have definitive proof the election was stolen. But this new “evidence,” an anonymous 32-page document, is built on many of the same flimsy claims he’s endorsed since he lost to Joe Biden.

    “It has often been repeated there is ‘no evidence’ of fraud in the 2020 Election,” the document says. “In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won. Ongoing investigations in the Swing States reveal hundreds of thousands of votes were altered and/or not lawfully cast in the Presidential Election. Joe Biden needed them.”

    The proof from swing states, it says, is enough to change the outcome.

    Trump shared the unsigned document on Truth Social, declaring it “fully verified.” 

    Stop us if you’ve heard this before: It’s not.

    Trump lawyers cited Trump’s post in a federal court document arguing Trump has immunity from prosecution in the federal election interference case. The report details dozens of claims about the 2020 election from Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Some allegations overlap with falsehoods previously debunked by PolitiFact or other fact-checkers. The report misleads about how election officials count ballots and arrive at final results. 

    “Nowhere is there a smoking gun, conclusive evidence that there was fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden,” said Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University political science professor who researches elections. “Instead, the report relies upon innuendo, implication and poor data analysis to reach a conclusion about fraudulent votes being cast when the evidence supposedly supporting that conclusion simply cannot justify that conclusion.”

    PolitiFact has documented some examples of voter fraud in 2020, such as people casting votes on behalf of dead relatives. But these instances were not enough to change the race’s outcome, and some crimes were committed by Republicans. Examples cited in the report do not prove that fraudulent ballots were cast for Biden. 

    The 2020 election’s outcome was verified in many ways. States certified the results. Congress accepted the results. Trump and his allies lost more than 60 lawsuits. 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.” 

    On the same day Trump shared this report, USA Today published an op-ed by Ken Block headlined: “Trump paid me to find voter fraud. Then he lied after I found 2020 election wasn’t stolen.” Block, a former Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate who founded Simpatico Software Systems, was hired by the Trump campaign to try to back up Trump’s allegations after the election. His work is now in the hands of prosecutors who have charged Trump with crimes for actions leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

    “What these claims don’t take into account is that voter fraud is detectable, quantifiable and verifiable,” Block wrote in USA Today. “I have yet to see anyone offer up ‘evidence’ of voter fraud from the 2020 election that provides these three things.”

    We fact-checked a sample of the allegations in the report Trump shared. Trump campaign spokespeople and his lawyers didn’t answer our emails asking to identify the report’s author.

    This May 6, 2021, photo shows contractors for Florida-based Cyber Ninjas examining and recounting Maricopa County, Arizona’s 2020 general election ballots at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix. (AP)

    Arizona

    The allegations about Arizona largely focus on Maricopa County, the jurisdiction with more than half of the state’s voters. State Senate Republicans ordered a review of the ballots and found that Biden beat Trump by about 45,000 votes — virtually the same as the county’s official canvass.

    The report Trump shared repeats some debunked claims. For example, it said that Maricopa County accepted 18,000 mail ballots the day after the 2020 election from the U.S. Postal Service. The Associated Press concluded that the claim was wrong. The number referred to a form showing when early ballots received before the deadline were handed to a private vendor for scanning, a Maricopa County Elections Department spokesperson told the AP.

    “In our legal system, there comes a time when questions are finally settled,” Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor, told PolitiFact “That time has come with regard to the validity of Biden’s election.”

    In this Oct. 19, 2020 file photo, a voter submits a ballot in an official drop box during early voting in Athens, Ga. (AP)

    ​​Georgia

    The report said “countless irregularities emerged” and cited “water main breaks” in reference to Georgia.

    State Farm Arena in Atlanta reported that one room being used for ballot counting had a 6 a.m. water leak. There was a brief delay in tabulating absentee ballots during the two hours required to repair the leak, which resulted from an overflowing urinal. No ballots were damaged, the arena said.

    In June 2023, the State Election Board dismissed a case about alleged malfeasance at the arena concluding “there was no evidence of any type of fraud as alleged.”

    The Trump document cites questionable sources, including True the Vote about ballot drop boxes — the focus of the “2,000 Mules” documentary by Dinesh D’Souza. The 2022 film alleged massive voter fraud involving ballot drop boxes and cellphone location data, based on several hundred phones passing by drop boxes. 

    “These assertions are part of a dancing fountain of lies that have been disproven by the count, the recount, and the audit of the 2020 vote in Georgia, and for which not one single shred of evidence has been offered,” said Mike Hassinger, a Georgia Secretary of State spokesperson. “Sixteen individual lawsuits were brought to challenge the validity of Georgia’s 2020 election results, of which 12 were dismissed by the courts, and four withdrawn by former President Trump’s own lawyers.”

    Voters wait in line Nov. 2, 2020, to fill out a ballot on the last day of early absentee voting before tomorrow’s general election at the Northwest Activities Center in Detroit. (AP)

    Michigan

    One of the report’s allegations about Michigan centered around suspected voter irregularities in Muskegon, a city of about 38,000 people. The report claimed police documented “a fraudulent voter registration scheme,” but this was kept “hidden” for almost three years.

    The report’s source is The Gateway Pundit, and in August we rated the underlying claim False.

    Here’s what happened: The Muskegon city clerk alerted police after noticing irregularities on some of the 8,000 to 10,000 voter registration forms dropped off by a canvasser. Local and state police referred the case to the FBI, because the canvasser’s employer, GBI Strategies, was operating in multiple states.

    Danny Wimmer, press secretary for Michigan’s attorney general, told PolitiFact that officials hadn’t ruled out the possibility that a crime may have been committed, but none of the agencies involved in the investigation found any evidence of successful fraudulent voter registrations.

    Philadelphia election workers scan ballots for the general election Nov. 3, 2020, at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia. (AP)

    Pennsylvania

    The report repeated a false claim Trump and his supporters pushed about ballot counting in Philadelphia in the days following the election. It alleged that in Pennsylvania’s largest city, “hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots were unlawfully counted in secret,” and Republican poll watchers were barred from observing the vote count.

    Election observers representing the Trump campaign and the Republican Party were allowed to observe the ballot-counting process, alongside Democrats. In Philadelphia, a judge allowed observers from both parties to view the process from 6 feet away.

    “Nothing was done in secret or against a court order,” said Nick Custodio, a Philadelphia City Commissioners office spokesperson.

    A ballot drop box sits outside City Hall in Milwaukee ahead of the 2020 election. (Rick Wood / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

    Wisconsin

    After losing Wisconsin to Biden, Trump allies filed lawsuits seeking to invalidate votes cast by drop box. The report cites the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in one of the lawsuits, which prohibited the use of drop boxes, except inside election offices.

    This ruling was announced one month before the state’s primary election for the 2022 midterms and applies to future elections; it does not retroactively apply to the 2020 election.

    An AP analysis found that the state’s expanded use of drop boxes in the 2020 election did not trigger widespread fraud. The Wisconsin Elections Commission saw no instances in which ballot drop boxes were damaged or used to submit fraudulent ballots.

    Our ruling

    If there was definitive evidence that Biden’s 2020 victory was secured on fraud, we would have it by now. The document shared by Trump is a lot of smoke — so much that we rate its central claim Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: Fact-check: Trump’s bogus claim on Fox News that ballots in 2020 were ‘fake’

    RELATED: In attack on Bill Barr, Trump repeats falsehood about 2020 election



    Source

  • Debunking Bogus Claim of ‘Bipartisan’ Support for Mayorkas Impeachment Hearings

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

    Legislators often tout support for some piece of legislation as bipartisan, even if only a few members from the opposing party back it.

    But in an announcement about committee hearings to investigate the possible impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, one Republican is taking claims of bipartisanship to absurd new lengths.

    “The bipartisan House vote in November to refer articles of impeachment to my Committee only served to highlight the importance of our taking up the impeachment process,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark E. Green stated on Jan. 3.

    Later, on Fox News, Green said, “Look, the Democrats are the ones that made the motion to bring this to my committee, so we’re going to do it.”

    But let’s pull back the curtain on this procedural sleight of hand.

    On Nov. 13, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed a “privileged” resolution to impeach Mayorkas “for high crimes and misdemeanors.” According to the rules of the House, that meant the resolution had to be considered in some fashion within two legislative days.

    In response, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark made a motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on Homeland Security. The motion passed 209-201, with 201 Democrats and eight Republicans voting in favor. No Democrats voted against the motion.

    But contrary to that being a Democratic endorsement of sending the impeachment resolution to committee, the vote was made to prevent an immediate vote on the floor to impeach Mayorkas.

    Adam Comis, a staffer for Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee, told us referring the bill to committee was “the only other option” available to prevent an immediate House vote to impeach Mayorkas. Green “saying it’s a bipartisan initiative is not accurate,” Comis said.

    Despite failing to force an immediate impeachment vote, Greene formally notified the House on Nov. 29 of her intent to again raise a privileged resolution impeaching Mayorkas.

    “I’ll just keep reintroducing it,” Greene said.

    The Impeachment Resolution

    Greene alleges in her impeachment resolution that Mayorkas “has failed to maintain operational control of the border, thereby violating the Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

    The Secure Fence Act of 2006 did call on the secretary of Homeland Security to “take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control” over the border. The law defined operational control as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

    Appearing before the Judiciary Committee on July 26, Mayorkas said that “under that statutory definition, no administration has achieved operational control.”

    “What we do is ensure that the resources that we have are deployed most effectively to gain the greatest amount of control that we can,” Mayorkas said.

    In her impeachment resolution, Greene also alleges that Mayorkas has allowed an “ongoing invasion at our southern border” that is a “direct national security threat,” and that he has therefore failed to uphold the Constitution.

    Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    In his July 26 testimony before Congress, Mayorkas said he has adhered to the law “strictly” and “scrupulously.”

    Greene also faulted Mayorkas for “terminating contracts for border wall construction, ending the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico), unlawfully granting categorical parole, and being complicit in ending title 42” — all of which, the resolution says, has resulted in making it “easier for illegal people and drugs to enter the United States, endangering American citizens.”

    Under the “Remain in Mexico” policy instituted by the Trump administration, asylum seekers had to stay in Mexico to await their court appearances in the U.S. Title 42 is a public health order that was used by Trump during the pandemic to allow border officials to immediately return Mexican migrants caught trying to enter the country illegally. Shortly after taking office, Biden sought to end both policies, though courts delayed implementation. In other words, Mayorkas was following the president’s policy.

    Greene’s claim about parole refers to the Biden administration’s efforts to expand and streamline the asylum process for some.

    During his July 26 testimony, Mayorkas said that the administration’s parole authority “is being used consistent with the law” and is used on a case-by-case basis. The benefits, he said, are that it has lowered the number of encounters of people trying to enter illegally at the southern border, that it has allowed DHS to screen and vet asylum seekers before they arrive at the border, and that it cuts out “the smuggling organizations that wreak such tragedy and trauma on the lives of vulnerable individuals.”

    Democrats were quick to condemn Greene’s resolution as baseless political theater.

    Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. told the New York Times, “Secretary Mayorkas is an honorable man who has dedicated years to public service. This matter is so baseless, so pointless, so free of fact or reason, I won’t even bother addressing its lack of merits.”

    Eight Republicans also blocked an impeachment vote by supporting the motion to send the resolution to the Homeland Security Committee.

    In a statement released after the Nov. 13 vote, Republican Rep. Tom McClintock said he agreed that Mayorkas “is the worst cabinet secretary in American history, guilty of malfeasance, neglect of duty and maladministration.” But, he said he did not believe Mayorkas’ actions met the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” needed for impeachment.

    “Elections have consequences, and this is one of them,” McClintock said.

    When Greene signaled on Nov. 29 that she intended to again raise a privileged resolution impeaching Mayorkas, McClintock was even more direct in his criticism of it.

    “By failing to abide by due process and constitutional constraints, Ms. Greene is tainting this serious impeachment inquiry with a shoot-from-the-hip stunt that is reckless, partisan, and manifestly unserious,” McClintock said from the floor of the House that day.

    Impeachment Hearings to Begin

    For his part, Green, the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, said he plans to begin impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas, with the first hearing on Jan. 10.

    In a statement to us, Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said, “No matter how many reports Republicans release, hearings they hold, or Fox News interviews they make, nothing Chairman Green has done this past year has changed the fact that the extreme MAGA Republican effort to impeach Secretary Mayorkas is completely baseless. They’ve only shown the American people it is nothing more than a political stunt without any foundation in the Constitution. It was never meant to be a legitimate investigation – only a MAGA spectacle.”

    At a press conference at the border in Texas on Jan. 3, Green called Mayorkas “the greatest domestic threat to the national security and the safety of the American people” and alleged that “he, through his policies, has defied and subverted the laws passed by the United States Congress.”

    Whether Mayorkas’ actions warrant an impeachment inquiry is, of course, a political dispute. And Green is free to make arguments to bolster his case for it. But his attempts to paint the committee hearings he is about to start as a bipartisan initiative are misleading. As their comments make clear, Democrats oppose an impeachment inquiry against Mayorkas. They voted to send the issue to committee to thwart an immediate House vote on impeachment.


    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: Donald Trump ad wrongly describes Nikki Haley’s position on a border wall, travel ban

    As the New Hampshire primary nears, polls show former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley closing the gap between her and President Donald Trump, her rival for the Republican presidential nomination. Perhaps feeling the pressure, Trump, the GOP front-runner, is airing an ad in New Hampshire that casts him as a strong defender of U.S. borders while portraying Haley as weak.

    Ominous music plays as the 30-second ad shows footage of large groups of migrants heading to the border, and families in mourning as a narrator mentions fentanyl deaths. 

    “Yet Haley and Biden oppose Trump’s border wall,” the narrator said. “Confirmed warnings of terrorists sneaking in through our southern border. Yet Haley joined Biden in opposing Trump’s visitor ban from terrorist nations.

    “Haley’s weakness puts us in grave danger. Trump’s strength protects us.”

    Text on the screen also said: “Haley opposed Trump’s border wall” and “Haley opposed Trump’s travel ban.”

    The claims about Haley’s positions are wrong. Haley said more was needed to secure the border, but she didn’t oppose Trump’s border wall. She opposed a Muslim travel ban, but supported other iterations of Trump’s travel bans. 

    Haley supported a border wall among other security measures

    On the border wall portion, the Trump ad cites a February 2023 Time article about Haley’s flip-flops around her former boss. The article linked to a 2015 Washington Post opinion piece about Haley’s remarks at a National Press Club luncheon that year. 

    Haley said that securing the border wasn’t just about building a wall.

    “Because a wall is not going to do it,” she said Sept. 2, 2015. “You’ve got to have commitment of ground troops, equipment, money, all of that to bring it together. Then you’re being serious about tackling illegal immigration.”

    During an April 2023 trip to the southwest border, Haley praised border fencing she said was installed by the Trump administration, saying more of it is needed.

    “It’s a complete lie,” Haley said about the Trump ad on Fox News Jan. 5. “First of all I didn’t say I opposed the border wall, I said I opposed just doing a border wall, I said that we have to do more than that.”

    Haley supported a ban that did not single out people for their religion

    As a presidential candidate in 2015, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” 

    Haley, then South Carolina’s governor, called Trump’s proposal “an embarrassment” that “defies everything that this country was based on.”

    The Trump ad cites those comments, ignoring that she supported the travel bans he issued when she was part of his administration. The U.S. Senate approved Haley’s confirmation as U.N. ambassador Jan. 24, 2017.

    Four days later, Trump signed an executive order banning citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. 

    Those seven countries “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” according to an anti-terrorism law signed by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama.

    PolitiFact didn’t find any public comments from Haley about the executive order at the time. 

    After court challenges, Trump revised that order to exclude Iraq. That new order also exempted U.S. legal permanent residents and people with U.S. visas.

    In a March 2017 NBC interview, Haley said she supported the new version.

    “It’s not a Muslim ban. I will never support a Muslim ban. I don’t think we should ever ban anyone based on their religion,” she said.

    After additional court challenges, Trump issued a third version of the travel ban, restricting U.S. entry to people from Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. The Supreme Court in June 2018 upheld this travel ban.

    Haley continued to defend the policy in an interview with NDTV that month, saying the executive order was “not a Muslim ban,” because not all Muslim-majority countries were on the list and not all countries on the list were Muslim-majority.

    “This is about safety. This is about terrorism,” Haley said.

    Haley’s position is similar years later in this presidential campaign. In response to Trump’s ad, her campaign said that she “supported banning travel for people from countries with serious terrorist activity, but opposed religious tests.” 

    Our ruling

    A Trump ad claimed that Haley “opposed Trump’s border wall” and “Trump’s travel ban.”

    Haley did not oppose Trump’s border wall. In 2015, she said border security required more than a border wall and that technology, infrastructure and funding were also needed. On the 2024 campaign trail, Haley has said she wants to finish building a border wall.

    Haley supported three versions of Trump’s travel bans, saying they were focused on safety, not religion. She opposed a religion-based ban. As a presidential candidate, Haley has said she supports banning entry to people from countries with terrorist activities.

    We rate Trump’s claims False.

     



    Source

  • Kimmel Not Named in Unsealed Epstein Documents

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

    Quick Take

    Court documents that include names of people associated with accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein are being unsealed, but late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has not been implicated. The suggestion that Kimmel would be among the names came from football player Aaron Rodgers, who had no evidence to support the claim.


    Full Story

    Dozens of court documents were unsealed this week as part of a defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre, an alleged victim of accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The documents include the names of people who were associated with Epstein, the late financier accused of running a sex-trafficking ring for himself and his powerful friends.

    Most of the names that have come out so far had already been publicized, though. Still, the anticipation that previously unknown associates would be revealed has caused a stir online, and Aaron Rodgers, an NFL quarterback who has a history of spreading misinformation, added to the confusion. As a guest on Pat McAfee’s ESPN show, Rodgers suggested without any evidence that late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel may be implicated in the list of names from the unsealed documents.

    “There’s a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, who are really hoping that doesn’t come out,” Rodgers said on the Jan. 2 episode of the show, in an apparent joke.

    “All right, obviously, a clip from this particular program was run on Jimmy Kimmel’s show whenever Aaron brought up the list and then Jimmy mocked him for it and Aaron has not forgotten about that,” McAfee explained on the show.

    None of the documents that have been unsealed so far include Kimmel’s name.

    Kimmel also responded to Rodgers in a post on X, saying in part, “for the record, I’ve not met, flown with, visited, or had any contact whatsoever with Epstein, nor will you find my name on any ‘list’ other than the clearly-phony nonsense that soft-brained wackos like yourself can’t seem to distinguish from reality.”

    Kimmel also threatened Rodgers with legal action, concluding his post, “Your reckless words put my family in danger. Keep it up and we will debate the facts further in court.”

    McAfee apologized the following day, saying, “Some things obviously people get very pissed off about, especially when they’re that serious allegations. So we apologize for being a part of it. I can’t wait to hear what Aaron has to say about it. Hopefully those two will just be able to settle this, you know, not court-wise, but be able to chitchat and move along.”

    But social media posts had already taken off with the claim, and an image showing Kimmel’s name that was purported to be from the new cache of unsealed documents spread widely on X and Instagram. The text in the image, which purports to be dialogue from a deposition tying Kimmel to Epstein, isn’t included in any of the roughly 60 documents that have been unsealed so far.

    One of the earliest versions of the image appeared on a meme-sharing site called iFunny from an account that posted several images related to the Epstein case. The account offered no explanation of where the image had originated.


    Sources

    Caruso, David. “Dozens more Jeffrey Epstein documents are now public. Here’s what we know so far.” Associated Press. 5 Jan 2024.

    The Pat McAfee Show (@ThePatMcAfeeShow). “Aaron Rodgers Weighs In On The ‘Super Bowl Logo Color Conspiracy.’” YouTube. 2 Jan 2024.

    Kimmel, jimmy (@jimmykimmel). “Dear Aasshole: for the record, I’ve not met, flown with, visited, or had any contact whatsoever with Epstein, nor will you find my name on any ‘list’ other than the clearly-phony nonsense that soft-brained wackos like yourself can’t seem to distinguish from reality. Your reckless words put my family in danger. Keep it up and we will debate the facts further in court. @AaronRodgers12.” X. 2 Jan 2024.

    Morgan, Emmanuel. “Pat McAfee Apologizes Over Role in Aaron Rodgers-Jimmy Kimmel Feud.” New York Times. Updated 5 Jan 2024.

    Brown, Julie, Brittany Wallman, and Ben Wilder. “New Epstein records cache offers names of VIP pals, victim’s efforts to get him arrested.” Miami Herald. 5 Jan 2024.



    Source

  • Fact Check: The FBI didn’t orchestrate Jan. 6, but poll shows the false belief has staying power

    Three years of investigations and hundreds of arrests have not surfaced evidence that the FBI orchestrated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    But ahead of the insurrection’s third anniversary, one poll of more than 1,000 respondents found that 25% of U.S. adults said it was “probably” or “definitely” true that “FBI operatives organized and encouraged” the 2021 Capitol attack. 

    The Justice Department has charged more than 1,200 people in connection with the day’s events. PolitiFact and other news organizations have repeatedly rebutted the unsubstantiated theory that federal agents instigated the violence, finding no evidence to support the claim. 

    Numerous federal investigations into the day’s events, and court filings against hundreds of defendants show the attack was carried out by people who believed or perpetuated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. 

    The FBI told PolitiFact, “Any suggestion that the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was orchestrated by the FBI is categorically false.”

    How did this theory emerge? 

    The FBI narrative emerged in June 2021, when right-leaning website Revolver News published an article encouraging that “all discussion” of Jan. 6, 2021, focus on determining “exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol.” 

    It theorized that the “unindicted co-conspirators” mentioned in some indictments could have been confidential FBI informants or undercover operatives. The article also questioned whether FBI informants might have been “active instigators” in the attack. 

    When we looked into these claims, experts told PolitiFact that under almost any circumstances, undercover federal operatives or informants cannot be described in government filings as co-conspirators. Part of criminal conspiracy involves the agreement to commit a crime, and that’s not what undercover operatives do. 

    Still, the narrative that the FBI orchestrated the events of Jan. 6, 2021, quickly spread, amplified by influential voices in the political right, including former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Republican politicians such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Matt Gaetz of Florida.

    Trump supporters try to break through a police barrier, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP)

    What was the FBI’s role on Jan. 6, 2021?

    Politicians and government reports criticized the FBI for failing to provide warnings about potential violence ahead of Jan. 6, 2021. But officials maintain that the FBI did not instigate the violence.

    In June, Steven D’Antuono, the former assistant director-in-charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, told the House Judiciary Committee that the agency had maybe “a handful” of confidential human sources present in the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021. And when asked about the theory that the FBI had directed those sources and orchestrated a false flag attack on Jan. 6, 2021, D’Antuono said, “that is furthest from the truth.”

    In his opinion, he said, there was “no nefarious or maliciousness” to having confidential sources in the crowd. That’s what such sources are for “all the time,” he said. 

    “None of this was orchestrated by the FBI, nor myself,” D’Antuono said.

    As recently as November, FBI Director Christopher Wray also dismissed the allegations.

    “If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is an emphatic no,” Wray told lawmakers during a Nov. 15, 2023, House Committee on Homeland Security hearing.

    U.S. Capitol Police officers with guns drawn as rioters try to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. (AP)

    Specific allegations that certain people involved in the attack were affiliated with the FBI have proved false.

    An Arizona man named Ray Epps was falsely accused of being an undercover FBI agent or informant, even though he was there to protest. Epps told the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that was untrue. “Epps informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on Jan 5th or 6th or at any other time, & that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency,” the committee wrote in a Jan. 11, 2022, statement.

    Prosecutors on Jan. 2 filed a memo in federal court seeking a six-month prison sentence against Epps following his guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge of disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds. They say he sought “to inspire and gather a crowd to storm the Capitol to protest the certification of the election.” Epps, they wrote, “has never been a government employee or agent, other than his four years of service in the Marines from 1979-1983.”

    In November 2023, some people — including Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah — promoted the theory that Capitol footage showed a man in a “Make America Great Again” hat flashing a badge, signifying he was an undercover federal agent. NBC News identified that man as Kevin Lyons, a Trump supporter who was convicted and is serving four years in federal prison for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. The alleged badge was likely a vape, NBC News reported.

    “I was stupid. I don’t know what came over me,” Lyons said during his sentencing. “I apologize to you, the country and my family.”

    Who is pushing this theory?

    The unsubstantiated tale persists, in part, because people with influence keep repeating it. 

    “Over the past few years, we have seen various conspiracies take hold — including Jan. 6 — because some of our politicians have pushed this lie, then some media outlets have amplified these lies, and then social media further amplifies, creating a vicious feedback cycle,” said Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Information.

    Pundits, elected officials and political candidates aligned with Trump have made these claims, downplaying the role that the Trump supporters played in the violence that unfolded on the Capitol that day. 

    • In November 2021, Carlson promoted the unsubstantiated theory in his “Patriot Purge” series for Fox Nation, claiming that federal agents incited people on Jan. 6 and “intentionally entrapped” American citizens. We rated that False.

    • In June 2022, a Texas businessman and congressional candidate ran a television ad that questioned if FBI agents were “used as political agitators.” We rated that False, too.

    • During a House Committee hearing in November 2023, Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., claimed that an undercover bus “filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters, deployed onto our Capitol on January 6th.” We rated that False.

    Dustin Carnahan, a Michigan State University communications professor who studies political misinformation, told The Associated Press ahead of the first anniversary of the Capitol attack that conspiracy theories become dangerous when they lead people to distrust democracy or to excuse or embrace violence.

    “If we’re no longer operating from the same foundation of facts, then it’s going to be a lot harder to have conversations as a country,” Carnahan said at the time, forewarning that it could fuel more political division.

    Today, Carnahan reflected on the FBI narrative’s staying power and said it is often difficult for supporters of a group — in this case, Trump supporters — to accept that some members might be capable of criminal actions they do not condone. 

    “Since we’re motivated to view the groups we belong to in a favorable way, accepting that these bad actors were Trump supporters presents an inconsistency,” Carnahan said. “In response, some group members will go to great lengths to seek alternative explanations for the actions of Jan. 6 in order to protect their view of the group and their connection to it.”

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Jan. 6

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Posts Make Baseless Claim About Deadly Iowa School Shooting

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

    Quick Take

    A sixth-grade student was killed, five people were injured and the 17-year-old gunman took his own life during a school shooting in Perry, Iowa, on Jan. 4. Social media posts baselessly labeled the incident a “false flag” event timed to draw attention away from the release of documents related to sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s associates.


    Full Story

    On the first day back to school from the winter break, a teenage gunman killed a sixth-grader and injured four other students and the principal at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa, on Jan. 4. Officials identified the shooter as Dylan Butler, 17, and said he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

    Authorities said Butler, a student at the school, had been armed with a pump-action shotgun and a small caliber handgun, and a “rudimentary” improvised explosive was also found in the school, the New York Times reported. Officials said they believe Butler acted alone. CNN reported that authorities also believe he posted a TikTok video showing himself in a school bathroom shortly before the shooting.

    Despite the details reported about the incident, posts on social media tried to cast doubt on the shooting, referring to it as a “false flag” meant to distract the public from the release of documents identifying associates of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide while jailed in 2019.

    “With the release of the Epstein Docs yesterday and the Iowa Caucus next week we conveniently have a False Flag mass shooting event at High School in Perry, Iowa. It’s all so obvious,” read a Jan. 4 Instagram post that received more than 1,300 likes.

    “Not even 24 hours after the Epstein court document was released we have multiple victims who were shot at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa. Make no mistake this is a false flag to distract the media from discussing anything in relation to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients,” read another post.

    A “false flag” refers to an action “designed to look like it was perpetrated by someone other than the person or group responsible for it,” according to Merriam-Webster.com. We’ve written about other bogus claims of “false flags” related to the death of George Floyd and threats of Election Day violence.

    There is no evidence for the conspiratorial claim in the social media posts that the deadly shooting in Perry, Iowa, involved or was planned by anyone other than the alleged teenage gunman.

    In addition, the incident has not distracted the media from extensive coverage of the release of the documents related to Epstein.


    Sources

    Caruso, David B. “Dozens more Jeffrey Epstein documents are now public. Here’s what we know so far.” Associated Press. 5 Jan 2024.

    Fichera, Angelo. “Antifa ‘False Flag’ Flyer Is an Old Hoax.” FactCheck.org. 3 Nov 2020.

    Goldstein, Matthew and Benjamin Weiser. “Unsealed Documents Shed Light on Epstein’s Misdeeds, and Little Else.” New York Times. 3 Jan 2024.

    Hill, James, Aaron Katersky and Jared Kofksy. “New batch of Jeffrey Epstein court documents released.” ABC News. 4 Jan 2024.

    Merriam-Webster.com. “False flag” definition. Accessed 5 Jan 2024.

    Reyna-Rodriguez, Victoria. “What we know about the Perry High School shooting victims, suspect and community response.” Des Moines Register. Updated 4 Jan 2024.

    Spencer, Saranac Hale. “Minneapolis Police License Plate Doesn’t Raise a ‘False Flag.’” FactCheck.org. 29 May 2020.

    Tabachnick, Cara and Allison Elyse Gualtieri. “Jeffrey Epstein contact names revealed in unsealed documents. Here are key takeaways from the files.” CBS News. 5 Jan 2024.

    Tumin, Remy, Victor Mather and Leah McBride Mensching. “Sixth Grader Killed and Five Others Injured in Iowa School Shooting.” New York Times. Updated 5 Jan 2024.

    Wolfe, Elizabeth, Raja Razek and Holly Yan. “Iowa school shooter believed to have posted an ominous TikTok video before killing a 6th grader and wounding 5 other people.” CNN. Updated 5 Jan 2024.

    Source

  • Fact Check: TikTok video falsely links removal of Florida voters and abortion amendment

    Abortion rights supporters in Florida are hopeful that a question will land on the November ballot that will let voters ensure abortion rights. But if you believe a TikTok video, election officials have conspired to prevent passage by kicking Democrats off voter rolls.

    The TikTok user said Florida voter roll data showed that “almost a million people, mostly Democrats, have been kicked off the voter roll.”

    The speaker, who did not answer our message, said in the video that a half-million Democrats were “purged” from the voter roll “because they know Florida women are about to put abortion rights (in) on the Constitution in 2024.” 

    A TikTok user tagged us in the comments to verify whether this is true, so we investigated. (We have a separate partnership with TikTok to analyze videos flagged as potential misinformation.)

    Our review shows county officials have removed about 1 million people from voting lists, and about half were Democrats. 

    Why? It’s part of their annual work to comply with state law. We found no evidence that voters were removed to thwart a potential question on the November ballot to protect abortion rights. 

    The abortion question will appear on the ballot if organizers collect the required nearly 900,000 signatures by Feb. 1, which appears to have been met, and the Florida Supreme Court approves the ballot language. A University of North Florida poll in November showed strong support.

    Florida routinely updates voter rolls before federal elections

    The TikTok video shows voter registration data posted by Brian Beute, a candidate for Seminole County elections supervisor. Beute cited state data showing that near the end of 2023, Florida had 13.5 million active registered voters, down from 14.5 million in 2022. That included a decline of about 153,000 Republicans and 467,000 Democrats, while the rest were largely unaffiliated with a party. The decline happened despite state population growth.

    But that’s not the complete voter registration list, because it does not include inactive voters.

    “Inactive voters are still registered voters,” said Mark Ard, Florida Division of Elections spokesperson. “Inactive voters can’t be removed until after two general election cycles of inactivity because of federal and state law.”

    Inactivity means not voting or having any contact with the elections office.

    “Basically they need to fog a mirror for us — call us to request a ballot, show up at a polling place to vote,” said Broward County Elections Supervisor Joe Scott. 

    New election laws changed voter removal processes

    The decline of 1 million active voters was more than in recent years.

    “It is unusual to have this many voters be removed from the voter rolls in one year,” said Mark Earley, Leon County elections supervisor. “But it is due to election law changes over the last three legislative cycles.”

    Florida, like all states, focused on updating voter rolls in odd-numbered years because of federal law that prohibits most removals within 90 days of a federal election. With primaries and a general election, there are few windows for this to happen.

    In 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed S.B. 524, which required county election supervisors to update the voter rolls annually. In 2023, DeSantis signed S.B. 7050, another elections bill that changed how election officials remove voters who have died, been convicted of felonies or moved. 

    The recent law shortened the process for providing voters with notice of removal.

    Before that law passed, if voters did not answer a final notice within 30 days to confirm they remained at the address and the notice didn’t bounce back, those voters stayed on the active list. Earley said that resulted in a backlog of voters who had moved out of the county or state but remained active registered voters, with no easy way to correct it.

    Under the new law, voters who don’t respond are moved to the inactive list. Then, if the voters have no contact with the elections office over two federal election cycles, those voters are removed.

    It did not surprise officials that the active-voter list declined by far more Democrats than Republicans. Democrats tend to be younger and more mobile and are therefore more likely to be removed from the voter rolls, said Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor. 

    However, the number of active voters will likely rise as Floridians register or update their status before November. 

    Our ruling

    A TikTok user said, “Almost a million people, mostly Democrats, have been kicked off the voter roll here in Florida” because of a question about abortion that could appear on the 2024 ballot.

    There is an element of truth, because almost 1 million people were removed from the active-voter list, and about half were Democrats. However, the post misleads about the reason. 

    County election officials must follow state law to remove voters from the active list, and voters on the inactive list are teed up for removal years later. A question could be placed on the November ballot to protect abortion rights, but there is no evidence that this influenced election officials who were updating voter rolls.

    We rate this statement Mostly False. 

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about elections



    Source

  • SFA Fund Inc.

    Political leanings: Republican/Pro-Nikki Haley

    2022 total spending: N/A

    SFA Fund Inc. is a political action committee supporting the presidential campaign of Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador.

    Its website says Haley is the “leadership America deserves,” and highlights her main policy issues as “creating jobs & opportunity, protecting the unborn, protecting U.S. interests abroad, securing our southern border” and “stop[ping] China.” The lead strategist for the SFA Fund is Mark Harris, a Republican political consultant.

    Operating as a hybrid PAC, also known as a “Carey committee,” the organization has the flexibility to serve as a super PAC, raising unlimited funds for independent expenditures, and as a traditional PAC, providing direct financial support to candidates. However, it is required to use separate bank accounts for each designated purpose.

    As of June 30, SFA Fund had raised roughly $18.7 million, according to its filings with the Federal Election Commission. The PAC received $5 million in contributions from Ukrainian-American businessman Jan Koum, the billionaire co-founder of WhatsApp. It also received $1 million from Haley’s leadership PAC, Stand for America PAC, which was formed in 2021, as well as $770,000 from Team Stand for America, an affiliated joint fundraising committee.

    SFA Fund says it is only focused on electing Haley president.

    As of Jan. 4, SFA Fund had paid more than $23 million to run TV and digital ads, according to data from AdImpact, a service that tracks political advertising and spending. Many of the ads are supportive of Haley, her record and her proposed policies. But several ads attack other candidates, specifically Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a fellow candidate in the GOP presidential primary, and President Joe Biden, whom Haley could potentially face in the general election in 2024.

    In late November, Forbes reported that the pro-Haley super PAC had spent at least $3.6 million on anti-DeSantis ads, primarily in Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the first two nominating contests in the Republican primary process.

    FactChecking SFA Fund Inc.:

    “Pro-Haley PAC Misattributes Quote to DeSantis,” Jan. 4

    Source

  • Never Back Down Inc.

    Political leanings: Republican/Pro-Ron DeSantis

    2022 total spending: N/A

    Never Back Down Inc. was established in February by Ken Cuccinelli, a former senior Trump administration official, to encourage Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. Once DeSantis declared his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, the super PAC said its “main goal and sole focus” would be getting DeSantis elected.

    Never Back Down is one of many political committees managed by longtime PAC treasurer Cabell Hobbs. Jeff Roe, a Republican political consultant known for running Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign, serves as the committee’s chief strategist.

    As a super PAC, officially known as an independent expenditure-only committee, Never Back Down advocates the election or defeat of federal candidates without coordinating with candidates, campaigns or political parties. It can accept unlimited contributions, but it must disclose its donors.

    As of June 30, Never Back Down had raised over $130.5 million. That includes $82.5 million from DeSantis’ state political committee Empower Parents PAC — a transfer that the nonpartisan election watchdog Campaign Legal Center says violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. The FEC has not yet ruled on the center’s complaint, which was filed in May.

    That complaint is one of four the Campaign Legal Center has filed with the FEC regarding the activities of DeSantis and Never Back Down. Most recently, CLC filed a complaint on Dec. 18, alleging that the DeSantis campaign “illegally coordinated” with Never Back Down “by directly or indirectly providing requests, suggestions, and guidance regarding the super PAC’s messaging in support of his candidacy.” Never Back Down officials and DeSantis denied the allegations.

    Other major donors to the super PAC include Robert Bigelow and Faithful & Strong Policies Inc. Bigelow, a real estate tycoon, donated over $20 million, but has since criticized the DeSantis campaign and said he may switch to supporting former President Donald Trump. Faithful & Strong Policies Inc. is a conservative nonprofit that contributed $5.5 million and is connected to Scott Wagner, the super PAC’s new chairman and interim CEO.

    Wagner, a co-chair of DeSantis’ 2022 gubernatorial transition team, assumed his new positions with Never Back Down in early December, after several of its top officials resigned or were fired. The administrative changes were made in response to the creation of Fight Right Inc., a new pro-DeSantis super PAC that will be responsible for television advertising while Never Back Down reportedly focuses on field organizing.

    As of Jan. 4, Never Back Down had spent nearly $37 million on independent expenditures supporting DeSantis’ presidential candidacy, according to FEC records reviewed by OpenSecrets. More than $31.7 million went to explicitly advocating for the Florida governor, while the other $5.1 million was dedicated to ads opposing Republican presidential candidates Nikki Haley and Donald Trump. About $4.6 million was spent against Haley and over $450,000 against Trump.

    FactChecking Never Back Down Inc.:

    “Dueling Ads: Trump and DeSantis on Social Security and Medicare,” April 20

    Source