Category: Fact Check

  • What’s in the Ethics Report on George Santos?

    The investigative subcommittee of the House Committee on Ethics released a 56-page report on Nov. 16 that found Rep. George Santos of New York “placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles.”

    “The ISC’s investigation revealed a complex web of unlawful activity involving Representative Santos’ campaign, personal, and business finances,” the report said. “Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit.”

    Rep. George Santos at the Longworth House Office Building on Oct. 13. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

    The report, which was unanimously adopted by the full committee, accused the Republican freshman congressman of stealing from his campaign, deceiving donors, reporting fictitious campaign loans, engaging in “questionable business dealings,” and lying about his background and experience. Santos also faces a federal indictment on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, making false statements, falsifying records, credit card fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering and theft of public funds.

    A day after the ethics report was released, the committee chairman introduced a resolution to expel Santos from the House. The Republican-controlled House is expected to consider the resolution after its Thanksgiving break.

    “The evidence uncovered in the Ethics Committee’s Investigative Subcommittee investigation is more than sufficient to warrant punishment and the most appropriate punishment, is expulsion,” Rep. Michael Guest said in a statement. “So, separate from the Committee process and my role as Chairman, I have filed an expulsion resolution.”

    Santos called the report “a disgusting politicized smear” and said he wouldn’t run for reelection in 2024.

    Here we recap the findings of the ethics committee.

    Campaign Finance Violations

    Santos ran unsuccessfully in the 3rd Congressional District in New York in 2020 before winning election in 2022, flipping a Democratic seat to the Republicans.

    In the report, the investigative subcommittee said it “uncovered significant campaign finance violations” in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles by Santos and his campaign committees, including the misreporting of personal loans, repayment for loans Santos didn’t make and the personal use of campaign funds.

    Santos has tried to blame Nancy Marks, his treasurer, who in October pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge for reporting false donations to the Federal Election Commission and a fraudulent $500,000 personal loan from Santos to his campaign.

    But the investigative subcommittee said Santos was “the ultimate beneficiary and knowing participant of much of the fraudulent reporting” and “was repeatedly advised by multiple members of his team about concerns regarding Ms. Marks, but he failed to take meaningful action.”

    The report said “there is substantial evidence” that most of about $827,000 in personal loans Santos’ campaign committee and his leadership PAC reported that he had made either weren’t made or weren’t “properly disclosed” to the FEC.

    In the 2020 cycle, Santos’ campaign committee reported six personal loans from Santos totaling $81,250, but the House investigation only found evidence that $3,500 was loaned, according to bank records and financial statements. Santos was then repaid $31,200, the report said.

    There’s no evidence of personal loans in the 2022 cycle of $80,000 and $500,000 that were reported by his campaign committee, the report said. The amounts enabled the campaign to report having more than $800,000 cash on hand as of March 31, 2022, to the FEC, despite allegedly having only one-tenth of that amount. The campaign later reported different loan amounts on different dates, “which more accurately reflects the campaign’s bank records,” the report said, but the campaign hadn’t amended the prior filings.

    Citing the court filing charging Marks, the report said that the fraudulent $500,000 loan on March 31, 2022, “was falsely reported to make the campaign committee appear more financially sound, in order to mislead the FEC, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and the public, so that Representative Santos would receive campaign support from the NRCC.”

    In October, Santos was charged with conspiracy to falsify records and other offenses related to the $500,000 loan. He pleaded not guilty.

    The report said there was no evidence that Santos’ leadership PAC – GADS PAC – received $27,000 in personal loans from Santos in the 2022 cycle, contrary to what the PAC reported to the FEC.

    The investigative subcommittee “found substantial evidence that Representative Santos was an active and knowing participant in a scheme to falsely report personal loans during his campaigns given his contemporaneous communications regarding the loans, the fact that he was repaid for some of the loans, and his involvement in the oversight of his campaign’s financial operations,” the report said.

    The report also cited evidence that campaign funds were spent for personal use.

    An unreported transfer from the campaign of $20,000 to Santos’ company Devolder Organization on Nov. 29, 2022, was subsequently used for $6,000 in purchases at Ferragamo, a luxury clothing brand; to pay Santos’ rent; and for two ATM withdrawals worth $1,800, one of them at a casino, the report said.

    Several expenditures by the campaign don’t appear to have a legitimate campaign purpose, the report charged, including nearly $2,300 spent at Atlantic City resorts; about $4,000 in payments to spas/estheticians, with two of those expenses labeled as “Botox” in spreadsheets provided by Marks; a July 2022 Airbnb expense of $3,332.81 incurred when the campaign’s calendar said Santos was “off at [the] Hampton’s for the weekend”; and Las Vegas taxi and hotel expenses charged to the campaign credit card in December 2021, when Santos told staff he was on his honeymoon.

    The report alleged Santos engaged in a fraudulent scheme to solicit donations for an LLC he set up and then spent the money on personal expenses. The LLC, RedStone Strategies, was formed in Florida in November 2021, with Devolder Organization, Santos’ company, as one of two authorized managers.

    An unnamed individual solicited donations from two people in October 2022, saying RedStone was an independent expenditure committee “set up to exclusively” help Santos win – despite the company not being registered with the FEC. Santos contacted one of the donors directly, saying he needed “some help on the outside for next week on TV.” RedStone’s bank account received $25,000 from each of those donors, and the amounts were then transferred to Santos’ personal accounts, the report said.

    It alleged the $50,000 total was used to pay credit card and other debt; spend about $4,100 at Hermes; and spend smaller amounts for meals, parking and Sephora. The investigative subcommittee “did not find evidence” that the contributions “were used to support Representative Santos’ candidacy.”

    In May, Santos was indicted for allegedly devising this scheme to defraud supporters of his House campaign. He then denied that he had been a manager of RedStone.

    In another alleged incident involving RedStone, Santos sent an April 1, 2022, text message asking a staffer of Marks to wire money from his New York political committee, RISE, to RedStone for “ads that we were supposed to pay and I forgot,” the subcommittee report said. The $6,000 that was transferred to RedStone was then moved to Santos’ personal checking account, which at the time had a balance of $136.93, the report charged.

    The subcommittee couldn’t find evidence that the money was used to pay for ads. Instead, “$5,000 was withdrawn and personal credit card balances were paid.”

    Financial Disclosure Violations

    The investigative subcommittee report alleged that required financial disclosure statements from Santos’ two campaigns for Congress contained “major errors and omissions” and that evidence shows those “were knowing and willful actions as part of an ongoing ruse by Representative Santos to fabricate a wealthy persona.”

    As a candidate and congressman, Santos has had a statutory requirement to provide financial disclosure statements since 2020. But some years he has not, and the ones he did file were riddled with errors, the report stated.

    The subcommittee said the evidence it collected about Santos’ personal finances was “drastically different” from what he disclosed on financial disclosure statements “and even more irreconcilable with the narrative he broadcast to his constituents, campaign supporters, and staff.”

    In reality, the report stated, Santos “was frequently in debt, had an abysmal credit score, and relied on an ever-growing wallet of high-interest credit cards to fund his luxury spending habits.”

    During his campaigns, Santos “referenced a background in finance as part of his qualifications for election to the House.” But, the report stated, “that background was largely fictional.” According to the report, “Had Representative Santos filed accurate and complete FD [financial disclosure] Statements, his constituents may have had cause to question whether he was actually ‘good at’ money management and growth, or balancing costs and budgets — or, indeed, whether he had any experience in finance at all.”

    When questioned about wide income fluctuations reported in disclosure statements, Santos claimed during an interview on MSNBC that he made $400,000 in 2019.

    Santos, MSNBC interview, May 10: So, the way I look at it is, they’re not understanding. The question is simple. George, why was your income 55-thousand in 2020? And why is your income drastically higher [in 2022]? Well, here’s the answer to that: We struck a deal with a company so nobody went unemployed and got reduced to like a very basic salary. As we called it “livable wages” in the company, so we could get by.

    Because our industry was capital introduction via vis-à-vis conferences, vis-à-vis speed dating, all that in private equity, and managing limited-partner, general-partner relationships in investment groups. So, long story short, I went from 2019 bringing in 400-and-something-thousand dollars, to yeah, in 2020 my reported income was 55k. Couldn’t be more legitimate. I actually qualified for unemployment.

    According to the subcommittee report, however, there is no record of him earning income over $400,000 in 2019, nor has he provided evidence of any investments or assets he held in 2019-2020.

    Santos’ own campaign provided him with a “vulnerability report” on Dec. 1, 2021, that raised questions about how he had loaned his 2020 campaign over $80,000 “when his personal financial disclosure did not show any assets and only a $55,000 salary,” and why he didn’t report a salary from Harbor City Capital Management, which was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, on his 2020 financial disclosure report. It also questioned his failure to file any 2021 financial disclosure form at all.

    Although his campaign staff encouraged him to drop out of the 2022 congressional race, Santos “denied the findings in the vulnerability report, and for every concern raised, he made an excuse. He told one of the campaign consultants that his sparse 2020 FD [financial disclosure] Statement could be reconciled with his claims of wealth because he did not need to disclose a ‘family trust.’” The subcommittee said it “found no evidence that such a trust exists.”

    In his 2022 financial disclosure statement, Santos “reported four assets: (i) an apartment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil valued between $500,001 and $1,000,000; (ii) a checking account with between $100,001 and $250,000; (iii) a savings account with between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000; and (iv) 100% ownership of Devolder Organization, valued between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000, with dividends of over $1,000,001 in both 2021 and 2022.

    “Each of these disclosures was false,” the subcommittee report stated.

    The report said Santos’ counsel reported that Santos “does not and has never owned real property.”

    As for the checking and savings accounts, “the Committee found no record of him having a savings account or any personal bank account that ever had more than $100,000 (let alone more than $1,000,000) at any time as of the date of his 2022 FD filing. At the start of the date of his filing, the balance in his primary savings account was $6,692.23; by the end of that day, it was down to $3,068.63 (after a rent check he had written a few days before was processed). His primary checking account had a beginning balance of $1,579.18; by the end of the day it was down to $35.15 (after several personal credit card accounts were paid). Likewise, Devolder Organization’s bank accounts never amassed a value of over $1,000,001, let alone net income, remotely close to this amount.”

    As for his 2023 financial disclosure statement, Santos still hasn’t submitted that, despite several notices from the committee that it was late. “As a sitting Member of Congress he has continued to flout his statutory obligation to file an FD Statement for the current year,” the report stated, “despite the Committee and his personal staff having advised him of the statutory requirements, and widespread attention to his lack of transparency regarding his financial situation.”

    The report alleged the errors and omissions in his financial disclosure statements not only violated House rules, but because he “willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or failed to file required information” he may have also violated criminal law. As a result, the committee said it has referred the issue to the attorney general.

    Lack of Diligence and Candor

    The subcommittee found that Santos violated the first two clauses of the House’s code of conduct by failing to respond to its investigation with “diligence and candor.”

    Santos publicly declared that he would “comply 100%” with the investigation. But the subcommittee report said his claim to “cooperate with the investigation was just another falsehood.”

    The New York Republican refused to testify before the investigative subcommittee and failed to “submit a declaration attesting under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of any information” he or his counsel submitted to the subcommittee, the report said.

    The report also said he provided “limited documents … often following lengthy delays.”

    The subcommittee gave Santos a request for information in March, but he didn’t provide any documents until September. “That production, which was not complete, consisted of documents that had been previously produced to the federal grand jury but were inexplicably withheld from the ISC for over five months,” the report said.

    In some cases, the limited information provided by Santos and his counsel was inaccurate.

    For example, his attorney gave the subcommittee the name of a tax preparer who helped Santos fill out his financial disclosure statements. But that person told the subcommittee “that she did not provide those services.” In fact, the report said, “Santos appears to have submitted the FD Statements on his own.”

    “Throughout this matter, Representative Santos evaded the ISC’s straight-forward requests for information,” the report said. “The limited responses he did provide included material misstatements that further advanced falsehoods he made during his 2022 campaign.”

    The report noted that Santos “did provide a substantive and relatively prompt document production in response to allegations of sexual misconduct raised by a prospective staffer.” The subcommittee found that allegation to be unsubstantiated.

    “But his ability to provide a robust response to the sexual misconduct allegations, while failing to provide similar responses to the ISC’s campaign and financial disclosure related inquiries, suggests that his willingness to comply with the ISC’s processes turned on whether he believed doing so was in his personal interest, rather than fulfilling his duty to cooperate with the ISC’s investigation and facing accountability through the House’s disciplinary process,” the report said.

    Personal History

    The report also addressed several of the false and unsubstantiated statements that Santos made about his personal history — including claims about his family, finances and education — while running for office.

    In summary, it said:

    House Committee on Ethics, investigative subcommittee report: Representative Santos’ congressional campaigns were built around his backstory as a successful man of means: a grandson of Holocaust survivors and graduate from Baruch College with a Master’s in Business Administration from New York University, who went on to work at Citi Group and Goldman Sachs, owned multiple properties, and was the beneficiary of a family trust worth millions of dollars left by his mother, who passed years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a result of long-term health effects related to being at one of the towers. No part of that backstory has been found to be true.

    After his campaign’s “vulnerability report” raised concerns about some of his claims, three campaign workers resigned. In response, “he downplayed the significance of the report, telling new staff who were brought on to replace those who had left, and those who stayed, that the report was inaccurate,” the subcommittee said. It added, “Following the turnover in his campaign staff, he continued to lie about his background, and found more ways to defraud his campaign supporters.”

    Santos has acknowledged padding his resume, at least.

    “My sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry,” he told the New York Post in a December 2022 interview. That was after the New York Times published an article questioning what appeared to be misrepresentations about his background.

    Santos admitted to the Post that he never graduated from any college or university, and that he “never worked directly” for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.


    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: Video doesn’t show President Joe Biden falling down plane stairs in Poland

    A video circulating social media is wrongly being characterized as showing President Joe Biden falling down a set of airplane stairs in Europe. 

    “US President Joe Biden fell on the plane stairs shortly after landing in Poland after visiting Ukraine and talking about having suffered a stroke,” read the text above a Nov. 15 Instagram post’s video. 

    The video shows someone apparently slipping and sliding down the stairs. 

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


    (Screenshot from Instagram)

    This claim is an old one, first appearing online in February, when Biden visited Poland.

    We don’t know who the person in the video is, but it’s not Biden. News footage of Biden arriving in Poland shows him descending the stairs without incident. He first appears at the 6:15 mark of this livestream posted on Facebook by ABC News. 

    A White House spokesperson told Newsweek in February that the person who fell wasn’t Biden. 

    We rate claims that this video shows Biden False.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: Wisconsin lawmaker falsely claims US House Speaker ‘opposes Social Security’

    Soon after House Republicans voted in Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., as House speaker, a number of Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin took to X to lament the pick. 

    This included state Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, who tweeted soon after the vote: “House Republicans voted in an anti-abortion insurrectionist who opposes Social Security benefits as their speaker today. Shameful.”

    While Hong makes several claims in her tweet, the last one caught our attention, and we decided to look into the new speaker’s views on Social Security benefits. 

    Social Security is a government program primarily funded through payroll taxes to provide financial support to retirees, disabled individuals and survivors of deceased workers.

    Does Johnson oppose such benefits?

    Johnson once said debt from entitlement programs is an “existential threat” to government 

    When asked to back up the claim, Hong pointed to Johnson’s leadership on the conservative Republican Study Committee, which he chaired from 2019 to 2021.

    In 2020, while Johnson chaired the caucus, the committee released a budget plan that urged Congress to adopt changes to Social Security and its benefits.

    These included measures to raise the retirement age and scale back cost-of-living adjustments to benefits for higher-income people. Those changes, among others, would have cut spending on Social Security by $756 billion over a decade, according to the budget plan.

    After pointing to the committee’s recommendations to cut Social Security benefits, Hong argued the large cuts are synonymous with opposing the benefits:  

    “While these changes might be messaged by the committee as ‘cuts,’” they are significant enough slashes to evidence that Republicans like Speaker Johnson are in opposition to the inherent goals of programs like Social Security and Medicare.” 

    Hong also pointed to a comment Johnson made while speaking at a 2018 event for the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank

    When talking about debt accrued from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, Johnson said they pose an “existential threat” to the American way of life and the “whole form of government.”

    Experts: Budget cuts don’t necessarily signify elimination

    It’s worth noting Social Security is in financial trouble and its funding is expected to be depleted as soon as 2033, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Johnson has endorsed reforming Social Security in a way that would significantly cut back its budget and is openly critical of the program’s spending, but experts say his record doesn’t equate to supporting elimination of the program. 

    Eric Kingson co-founder of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for entitlement programs, said the committee’s plan takes “significant shots at Social Security” and would scale back benefits, but Johnson’s position doesn’t necessarily go against the program. 

    The Republican Study Committee’s plan under Johnson’s leadership specifically called for “long-term solvency” for Social Security, which Richard Burkhauser, a political analysis professor at Cornell University argues could be Johnson’s approach toward preventing default of Social Security before 2033.

    Our ruling

    Hong claimed Johnson “opposes Social Security benefits.”

    It’s true Johnson’s endorsed Social Security reform would scale back entitlement benefits for some Americans, which Hong argues should be interpreted as opposition to the program. 

    But endorsing significant cuts to the program is not the same as opposing the program itself, especially given its precarious financial picture.

    Indeed, Johnson hasn’t outright said he opposed Social Security benefits.

    We rate this claim Mostly False, which means: “The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: Post alleging ‘business relationship’ between Stormy Daniels and Mike Johnson is satire.

    Americans are learning a lot about Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., since his fellow Republicans named him speaker Oct. 25. But a viral rumor about Johnson and former adult film star Stormy Daniels is not credible.

    “BREAKING FOX NEWS: Stormy Daniels admits to having a business relationship with Speaker Mike Johnson,” said the Nov. 11 X post that got more than 1 million views and included side-by-side headshots of Johnson and Daniels. 

    Screenshots of the post quickly spread across Facebook, X, and TikTok with no sign they were posing as anything other than actual news.


    (Screenshot of X post)

    But the post is not news —  neither “breaking” nor “developing.” It was created as satire. The X account that first posted the claim, @PatMaguire10, describes itself as an “unfiltered parody account.” Other social media users saw the post and reshared it without that disclaimer.

    There are no articles from Fox News reporting this story. And a Fox News spokesperson confirmed the network never reported this. 

    Daniels became a household name in 2018 after she said she had sex with President Donald Trump in 2006 while he was married. Trump has repeatedly denied the claims. 

    Trump in April pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York, charges that prosecutors said stemmed from a 2016 “hush money” payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.  

    We rate the claim that Fox News reported on a “business relationship” between Johnson and Daniels False. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: Did Abraham Lincoln challenge a rival to a sword fight?

    With an unruly House speaker election and sharp words in the Senate over blocked military promotions, the current Congress has hardly been sedate. But tempers flared to a notable level Nov. 14.

    One Republican House member accused another of kidney-punching him in a Capitol hallway. A Republican House committee chairman called a Democrat a “smurf.” And Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., got into a heated exchange with International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien at a committee hearing. 

    Mullin read aloud a series of O’Brien’s social media posts, including one in which he appeared to challenge Mullin to a fight. Mullin then asked O’Brien, who was testifying at the hearing, if he wanted to fight there and then.

    “I’d love to do it right now,” O’Brien said.

    “Well, stand your butt up then,” Mullin replied.

    “You stand your butt up,” O’Brien responded.

    Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tried to gavel them down.

    Sanders yelled at Mullin to sit down, banged his gavel several times and told both of them to stop talking. But the argument lasted for several minutes.

    The following day, Mullin defended himself in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, arguing that Washington has a long history of political figures fighting each other, including President Andrew Jackson and an incident in the Capitol in which a reporter shot and killed a former congressman with whom he’d feuded. 

    At one point, Mullin invoked President Abraham Lincoln. “Abraham Lincoln challenged a guy to a sword fight,” Mullin told Bash.

    Almost two decades before he became president, Lincoln did engage in a duel. But it was the other way around; Lincoln was the one who was challenged.

    Mullin’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.

    An account by the American Battlefield Trust, a non-profit organization that helps conserve historic battlefields, says the 1842 duel occurred early in Lincoln’s career as a lawyer and politician. It stemmed from a feud he had with Illinois State Auditor James Shields over a decision to close the Illinois State Bank.

    The editor of the Sangamo Journal, a friend of Lincoln, let Lincoln write a letter critical of Shields under the pen name “Rebecca.” When Shields demanded to know who had written the letter, the editor revealed that it was Lincoln. Shields demanded a retraction, and when Lincoln refused, Shields challenged him to a duel on a river island in Missouri, where dueling was legal.

    According to the American Battlefield Trust:

    “Since Lincoln was challenged by Shields he had the privilege of choosing the weapon of the duel. He chose cavalry broadswords ‘of the largest size.’ ‘I didn’t want the damned fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols,’ he later explained. For his own part, he did not want to kill Shields, but “felt sure (he) could disarm him” with a blade. At six feet, four inches tall, Lincoln planned to use his height to his advantage against Shields, who stood at a mere five feet, nine inches tall.

    “The day of the duel, September 22, arrived and the combatants met at Bloody Island, Missouri, to face death or victory. As the two men faced each other, with a plank between them that neither was allowed to cross, Lincoln swung his sword high above Shields to cut through a nearby tree branch. This act demonstrated the immensity of Lincoln’s reach and strength and was enough to show Shields that he was at a fatal disadvantage. With the encouragement of bystanders, the two men called a truce.”

    Michael Burlingame, a University of Illinois, Springfield historian and author of “Lincoln: A Life” and “An American Marriage: The Untold Story of Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd,” told PolitiFact that the American Battlefield Trust account is accurate and that Lincoln was not the party who made the challenge to duel.

    Our ruling

    Mullin said, “Abraham Lincoln challenged a guy to a sword fight.”

    Lincoln did agree to a duel involving swords, but he was not the one to make the challenge; his rival did. The two men met on a river island in Missouri but called off the duel before it started.

    We rate the statement Half True.

    PolitiFact staff writer Samantha Putterman contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Trump’s Latest Election Fraud Spin

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

    In his latest election fraud spin, former President Donald Trump falsely suggested that 3,600 criminally duplicated ballots were counted in Atlanta’s Fulton County in the 2020 presidential election. He is referring to news reported months ago about errors made during an audit — not during the official ballot count. 

    State investigators found there were double-counted and miscounted votes during an audit in the county to confirm the 2020 results. But the audit was never part of the certified tally in Georgia, which Joe Biden narrowly won. Investigators say the errors were unintentional and did not affect the outcome.

    In his post to Truth Social on Nov. 11, Trump stated, “Fulton County, Georgia, acknowledges, in a major Consent Decree, that 3,600 individual ballots were DUPLICATED (36 Batches). THAT’S A LOT OF CRIME. When are the rest of the facts coming out? We are all waiting. This is just the beginning. UNBELIEVABLE!”

    Trump is referring to a consent order (not a consent decree, which is a settlement approved by a judge) from June in which state elections investigators concluded that Fulton County elections staff “misidentified and duplicated” tally sheets in an audit of 2020 election results. Not mentioned by Trump is that state investigators concluded the errors were “not due to intentional misconduct by Fulton County elections staff” and represented just a fraction of the overall votes cast and therefore “did not affect the result” of the election in Fulton County.

    That was publicly reported in June, and it’s hard to know what prompted Trump to post about it on Nov. 11. (His campaign did not respond to an inquiry about the post.) But a 2021 clip of then Fox News host Tucker Carlson raising similar issues was recirculated in a Nov. 10 post on X, formerly known as Twitter. According to the social media platform, the post has been viewed over 60 million times.

    At a Georgia Board of Registration and Elections meeting on March 16, 2022, James Callaway, then deputy chief of investigations for the secretary of state’s office, said an investigation had identified “numerous examples of human error while inputting data” into an open-source software system being used in the audit to upload Fulton County results to the state.

    “But there was no evidence discovered to suggest criminal behavior,” Callaway said. “I believe the errors were due to batch sheets being entered twice under different headings.”

    In addition to some batches of votes being entered twice, investigators said there were instances of miscounted votes, such as when an election official misread and recorded a 47 as 97.

    Joe Rossi, a Houston County resident who first identified flaws in the audit counts, said at that meeting that the inputting errors resulted in more than 4,000 extra votes for Biden.

    Fulton County election workers examine ballots while vote-counting at State Farm Arena on Nov. 5, 2020, in Atlanta, Georgia. Photo by Tami Chappell/AFP via Getty Images.

    A review by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution concluded there were about 3,000 too many absentee ballots counted for Biden in the audit. However, the AJC noted, “Despite inaccuracies in the ballot batches that were investigated, the overall count in the audit was close to the official machine results.” Biden won the state by about 12,000 votes.

    Sara Tindall Ghazal, a Democratic appointee to the State Election Board, noted at that meeting that the purpose of the audit — which ultimately resulted in a hand-recount of all the votes because the margin of victory for Biden was so close — was simply to confirm whether the correct person won the election.

    “It’s not supposed to be a one-to-one recount,” Ghazal said. “A recount was also conducted and that’s a different thing altogether. The recount looked at the number of votes and, in fact, the count was valid. The audit is to identify whether or not the right candidate won.”

    Ghazal said the mistakes were “human data entry errors” and likely the result of time constraints placed on election officials to complete the audit.

    The initial machine count indicated that Biden won by 12,670 votes. A machine recount narrowed that slightly, showing Biden winning by 11,779 votes. Those are the official results.

    At the meeting in March 2022, Ryan Germany, then the general counsel for the secretary of state’s office in Georgia, noted that “the certified results of the election are, you know, the initial machine count and then the recount from the machine already certified. So the audit numbers are not part of any certified results.”

    Nonetheless, at the meeting, the state board voted to turn the case over to the state attorney general’s office to investigate whether the errors amounted to a violation of the state’s rules and regulations related to preparing for an audit.

    At the board’s Feb. 7, 2023, meeting, the public learned that the state attorney general’s office and counsel for Fulton County had agreed to resolve the complaint with a consent order in which Fulton County admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to implement some written policies and procedures to prevent errors in future audits.

    The consent order, provided to FactCheck.org by the State Election Board, notes that state investigators confirmed there was human error in entering data, but it didn’t affect the election results in the county. 

    Consent order, June 8: The results of the investigation showed that Fulton County elections staff misidentified and duplicated audit batch sheet data when entering the data into the Arlo software used by the Secretary of State’s office to manage the risk-limiting audit. By failing to enter all of the audit batch sheet data accurately, Respondent [the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections] violated SEB Rule 183-1-15-.04 regarding audits.

    The investigators further concluded that the reported inconsistencies were the result of human error in entering the data, which were not discovered in time to make corrections due to time limitations in completing the risk-limiting audit and the sheer amount of ballots, and not due to intentional misconduct by Fulton County elections staff.

    The discovered errors were a fractional number of the total votes counted and did not affect the result of the 2020 General Election [in] Fulton County, which were confirmed as accurate by the risk-limiting audit. The purpose of the risk-limiting audit was to confirm whether the results of the original tabulation of ballots were accurate, which the audit confirmed.

    Trump wrongly claimed the order was evidence of “A LOT OF CRIME.” The order says the settlement reached “is a civil settlement and has no criminal ramifications” and that there is no admission of guilt by the Fulton County election board.

    The consent order was subsequently approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners and the State Election Board in June. In an Aug. 1 meeting of the State Election Board, its chair, William Duffey, provided an overview and timeline of the whole process.

    Asked about the negotiated agreement in July, Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The investigation specifically found that any data entry errors committed by Fulton did not affect the results of the 2020 election. The case is now closed.”


    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: Does Gov. Ron DeSantis want to cut Social Security and Medicare? Here’s what his record shows

    A Spanish-language ad playing on South Florida radio stations portrays a phone conversation between a daughter and a mother who are lamenting Florida’s high costs of living. 

    The mom says, “Now your father wants to retire, but we don’t know if he’ll have Social Security.” The daughter asks why.

    “The governor, Ron DeSantis, is the reason our costs are going up and he’s doing nothing about it. He even wants to cut Social Security and Medicare,” the mom says. “And now he wants to become president.”

    The ad began airing Nov. 8 and comes from DeSantis Watch, a project of the left-leaning research organizations Progress Florida and Florida Watch.

    Social Security is a source of monthly income for older Americans who are retired or have reduced their working hours. Most jobs take Social Security taxes out of workers’ paychecks so that the workers can get monthly benefits later in life. 

    Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people age 65 and older and for certain younger people with disabilities. There are different parts of Medicare; original Medicare pays for doctor’s visits and hospital stays (beneficiaries generally have copays). Medicare Advantage is a Medicare-approved plan offered by private companies as an alternative to original Medicare for health and drug coverage.

    PolitiFact checked DeSantis’ congressional record, his comments as governor and and his comments as he seeks the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The ad contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts.

    As a U.S. representative before becoming governor, DeSantis supported congressional proposals to reduce Social Security and Medicare spending, including by raising the age for full eligibility. But those proposals were symbolic statements of a policy preference; even if passed, the proposals would not have become law.

    As a governor and presidential candidate, DeSantis has said he’s open to changing Social Security rules for younger generations, but he’s said he would not change it for current beneficiaries. His current stance on Medicare is not clear.

    DeSantis’ congressional record

    Anders Croy, Florida Watch and DeSantis Watch’s communications director, directed PolitiFact to DeSantis’ congressional votes in 2013, 2014 and 2015 for three nonbinding budget proposals. These resolutions called for raising the retirement age and slowing future Social Security spending. The House didn’t pass the proposals, but even if it had, they would not have become law. 

    Croy also noted that in 2017, DeSantis voted for another nonbinding budget resolution, a motion that does not enact a law, that proposed cutting $473 billion to Medicare’s baseline spending over a decade. This provision also needed the approval of additional laws to take effect.

    Whether those measures amounted to cuts to the programs is debatable. 

    Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told PolitiFact in 2018 that whether these resolutions would have led to cuts hinged on the particulars of other proposals that would have to eventually become law. 

    What’s DeSantis’ current stance on Social Security and Medicare?

    The ad says DeSantis “wants” to cut Social Security and Medicare, giving the impression this is his stance as he runs for president. 

    Although DeSantis has said in interviews and public appearances that the Social Security program needs changes, he has also said he supports keeping it as is for current beneficiaries. He has said he is open to changing eligibility requirements for younger Americans currently in their 30s and 40s.

    “When people say that we’re going to somehow cut seniors, that is totally not true,” DeSantis said in July on Fox News. “Talking about making changes for people in their 30s or 40s so that the program’s viable, that’s a much different thing.”

    Changes to Social Security, such as raising the retirement age, would most likely mean benefit cuts, said Andrew D. Eschtruth, an associate director at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research. 

    If people are promised benefits at a specific age and then, when they become eligible to receive them, the age requirement increases, those people lose the benefits for that expected period, he said.

    DeSantis has not specified if or how he would change Medicare.

    Our ruling

    A DeSantis Watch ad claims that DeSantis “wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

    As a presidential candidate, DeSantis has not said what he wants to do with Medicare. He has said he favors changing Social Security, although not in a way that affects current beneficiaries. 

    In Congress, DeSantis supported proposals to reduce Social Security and Medicare spending, including raising the age at which people are fully eligible. This could mean people who thought they would be receiving benefits at a certain age end up waiting longer. Whether that is considered a “cut” is debatable, and those measures were nonbinding, which meant they were motions that didn’t enact a law. 

    The ad comes as DeSantis runs for president and can give the misleading impression that he’s campaigning on a platform to make broad cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

    We rate this claim Mostly False.



    Source

  • Dozens of Children Died in Hamas’ Oct. 7 Attack on Israel, Contrary to Online Claim

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

    Quick Take

    At least 29 children have been identified by international authorities as having died in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. But a video, citing a post deleted by the World Jewish Congress, has been circulating online falsely suggesting that children didn’t die in the attack in Israel.


    Full Story

    Thousands of children have reportedly died amid the fighting between Israel and Hamas, which began with the Palestinian militant group’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

    More than 3,000 children died in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel between the start of the conflict and Oct. 29, according to the international aid organization Save the Children, based on reporting from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry and Israeli authorities.

    Family and friends mourn at a funeral for the Kutz family, including parents Aviv and Livnat and children Yonatan, Rotem and Yiftach. All were killed during the attack at Kfar Aza Kibutz on Oct. 7, in Israel. Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images

    At least 29 children were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. In addition, about 30 children were taken hostage by Hamas, the Associated Press reported.

    But a video has been circulating on Instagram falsely suggesting that there may have been no deaths of children in Israel.

    The video shows a since-deleted post from the World Jewish Congress’ Instagram page, which the video calls “A list of the children who were allegedly massacred on Oct. 7.” The video concludes with large red text at the end: “EXPOSED: Israel’s named victims of ‘October 7th massacre’ are copied from an article that was written in 2014.”

    One user left a comment that said: “One has to start doubting if anyone really was killed.” Another said, “This is all planned and fake to excuse their actions and they thought the world would let them get away with it.”

    It appears that the Instagram post by the World Jewish Congress — an organization representing Jewish communities globally — shown in the video does repeat some of the names included in a list from 2014 of children who had been killed in Israel over the preceding years.

    Although the post is no longer available, a reverse-image search shows that the organization did post a graphic on its Instagram page with the title “Israel’s children murdered in the Hamas massacre” and a list of names.

    We emailed and called the World Jewish Congress about the Instagram post, but we didn’t hear back.

    Regardless, though, just because an advocacy organization posted an image with a list of wrong names for the children who were recently killed in Israel isn’t proof that children weren’t killed in the Oct. 7 attack.

    As we said, the U.N. has reported that at least 29 of the roughly 1,200 people who were killed in Israel were children. Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, maintains an ongoing list of officially confirmed casualties that includes 29 children.

    There has been extensive news coverage of the Oct. 7 attack and the war, including stories on video footage from that day showing “Hamas gunmen cheering with apparent joy as they shot civilians on the road, and later stalking the pathways of kibbutzim and killing parents and children in their homes,” as BBC reported.

    As we have written, Israel’s National Center of Forensic Medicine has been working to identify the remains of those killed on Oct. 7. Forensic pathologist Chen Kugel, the head of the center, said the ages of those killed ranged from 3 months to 80 or 90 years, according to The Media Line, an American news outlet that covers the Middle East.

    Kugel also told the Los Angeles Times that initially most of the bodies could be identified through DNA. Now, the staff’s work involves “reassembling and reconnecting pieces” of remains found in the landscapes where the killings occurred.

    For example, what initially appeared to be a piece of charcoal was examined through a CT scan, Kugel said. The scan revealed, “These were people who were hugging one another and burned while they were tied together. It might be a parent and a child.”


    Sources

    Congressional Research Service. “Israel and Hamas October 2023 Conflict: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” 20 Oct 2023.

    Save the Children. Press release. “GAZA: 3,195 CHILDREN KILLED IN THREE WEEKS SURPASSES ANNUAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN KILLED IN CONFLICT ZONES SINCE 2019.” 29 Oct 2023.

    United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #19. 25 Oct 2023.

    Kellman, Laurie. “About 30 children were taken hostage by Hamas militants. Their families wait in agony.” Associated Press. 27 Oct 2023.

    Holland’s Heroes. “Where were the ‘Humanitarians’ while this List grew?” 30 Aug 2014.

    “Israel’s Dead: The Names of Those Killed in Hamas Attacks, Massacres and the Israel-Hamas War.” Haaretz. 19 Oct 2023.

    Fleishman, Jeffrey. “Inside the Israeli lab ‘reassembling and reconnecting’ the mangled bodies of the dead.” Los Angeles Times. 16 Nov 2023.



    Source

  • Fact Check: In final report, House Ethics Committee targets George Santos’ falsehoods

    Despite widespread attention to dubious claims about his personal story, Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., remains a member of Congress. But with the Nov. 16 release of a scathing House Ethics Committee report, Santos’ days in the House may be numbered.

    The committee report found “overwhelming evidence of his misconduct,” including several matters it referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. The referrals go beyond the charges Santos was already facing in federal court, including counts of wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions, false statements, records falsification, identity theft and conspiracy. Santos has pleaded not guilty to all charges; a trial is scheduled for September.

    After the committee released its report, Santos said he would not run for reelection. The report also accelerated House lawmakers’ efforts to expel him, which would take a two-thirds majority.

    As journalists dedicated to determining what is true and false in politics, we at PolitiFact were struck by how much the committee’s report addressed not just possible criminal and ethical violations by Santos but his falsehoods as well.

    The 64-page document uses a variation on the word “lie” nine times, and a variation on the word “false” more than 30 times.

    “A fundamental tenet of government service is that public office is a public trust,” the report said, concluding that Santos “cannot be trusted.”

    The committee added that “while it is not uncommon for committee investigations to involve multiple allegations and a pattern of misconduct, the sheer scope of the violations at issue here is highly unusual and damning. … Most significantly, Rep. Santos’ fraud on the electorate is ongoing — he continues to propound falsehoods and misrepresentations rather than take responsibility for his actions.”

    Here, we’ll take a closer look at what the report said about Santos’ problems with the truth.

    Santos’ dubious personal story

    Earlier this year, we covered the breadth of Santos’ questionable claims about his personal background. We found that he only rarely acknowledged fabrications or falsehoods; instead, he mostly reiterated them or ignored any questions about their veracity.

    In most cases, lying about one’s background would be outside the Ethics Committee’s purview. But the committee’s report recapped Santos’ litany of apparent fabrications, adding its voice to those who have said they are false.

    “Rep. Santos’ congressional campaigns were built around his backstory as a successful man of means: a grandson of Holocaust survivors and graduate from Baruch College with a Master’s in Business Administration from New York University, who went on to work at CitiGroup and Goldman Sachs, owned multiple properties, and was the beneficiary of a family trust worth millions of dollars left by his mother, who passed years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a result of long-term health effects related to being at one of the towers.

    “No part of that backstory has been found to be true.”

    These falsehoods, the committee found, were a gateway into more serious acts.

    “Rep. Santos’ ‘omissions’ are more than just embellishments intended to cover up his embarrassment about not having the academic pedigree he claimed,” the panel wrote. “His missing disclosures hid his disreputable business dealings that coincided with his campaign for Congress.”

    Falsehoods about money

    Much of the report addressed problems with the mandatory campaign finance disclosure forms that Santos and his campaign filed. The investigators found “systemic errors and omissions” that it concluded were “part of an overall scheme to avoid transparency.”

    For instance, the report noted a financial disclosure form in which Santos said he owned an apartment in Brazil; a checking account worth as much as $250,000; a savings account worth between $1 million and $5 million; and ownership of the Devolder Organization, a company worth between $1 million and $5 million. None of these claims were close to accurate.

    The committee interviewed several witnesses who said Santos would “boast of significant wealth and claim to have access to a ‘trust’ managed by a ‘family firm’” when in fact he “was frequently in debt, had an abysmal credit score, and relied on an ever-growing wallet of high-interest credit cards to fund his luxury spending habits.”

    The report added that Santos “referenced a background in finance as part of his qualifications for election to the House. That background was largely fictional.”

    Santos’ lack of candor during investigation was ‘just another fraud’ 

    The report didn’t just take Santos to task for failing to provide a full accounting to the committee; it also accused him of lying when he said he would cooperate.

    “Shortly after the committee announced that it had impaneled (a subcommittee) to review allegations relating to Rep. Santos, he told news outlets: ‘I’m going to comply 100% with’ the committee’s investigation,” the report said. But “despite his public assurances, Rep. Santos provided limited documents … often following lengthy delays.” 

    The report characterized this as “clear” evidence that Santos’ promise to cooperate with the investigation “was just another falsehood.”

    The report also knocked Santos for claiming the committee never told him to correct his financial disclosure filings. The report said the committee had told him clearly that he should do so. 

    “This is just another fraud on the electorate,” the report said.

    Dishonesty to his staff

    The report details multiple instances in which Santos was dishonest with his staff.

    During his campaign, his team presented him with a 141-page “vulnerability report” that flagged numerous concerns about his personal and financial background.

    “As a result of the report, Rep. Santos was encouraged by his campaign staff to drop out of the race and, when he refused, three staffers quit his campaign altogether,” the report said. “This was a key moment wherein Rep. Santos could have put an end to all the lies he told, or at a minimum, taken steps to correct the record about his background and personal and campaign finances. Instead, he downplayed the significance of the report,” telling his aides that it was inaccurate.

    One particularly bold claim concerned a sports car. “At no point does Rep. Santos appear to have owned a Maserati, despite telling campaign staff otherwise,” the report said.

    The committee concluded that despite such statements, Santos’ aides eventually became wise to his ways: “Members of Rep. Santos’ own campaign staff viewed him as a ‘fabulist’ whose penchant for telling lies was so concerning that he was encouraged to seek treatment.” 

    PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Yemen no declaró la guerra a Israel, grupo rebelde de hutíes lanzó misiles

    Una publicación en Facebook dice que Yemen le declaró la guerra a Israel, pero eso es falso. 

    “El representante oficial de las fuerzas armadas de Yemen ha declarado oficialmente la guerra a Israel”, dice el video del 2 de noviembre que muestra a un soldado dando un discurso televisado. 

    La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).

    Ni el gobierno oficial de Yemen, ni su representante oficial de las fuerzas armadas declararon la guerra a Israel. Un grupo de rebeldes llamados hutíes lanzaron drones y misiles balísticos a Israel el 31 de octubre. El general de brigada del grupo rebelde, Yahya Saree, dijo en un comunicado televisado que ellos fueron los responsables de estos ataques. Él también dijo que no iban a parar hasta que “las agresiones israelíes” contra la Franja de Gaza cesarán, según Reuters. 

    Los hutíes no son el gobierno oficial de Yemen, dijo a PolitiFact el Dr. Charles Schmitz, un profesor de geografía en la Universidad de Towson y especialista en el Medio Oriente y Yemen. 

    Schmitz dijo que los hutíes controlan la capital del país, Saná, y alrededor de tres cuartos de la población yemeníe. 

    A pesar de los intentos militares de Arabia Saudita y los Emiratos Árabes de expulsarlos de la región en los últimos ocho años de la guerra civil, los hutíes son referidos como el gobierno “de facto” de Yemen. El gobierno reconocido internacionalmente como la República de Yemen, dirigido por el Consejo de Liderazgo Presidencial, sigue controlando el sur y el este del país, incluyendo Adén, la capital temporal. 

     “Es posible que sus esfuerzos no tengan mucho más que un efecto simbólico, aunque los israelíes, saudíes y estadounidenses están dedicando recursos a proteger a Arabia Saudita e Israel de los drones y misiles hutíes”, Schmitz dijo.

    Niku Jafarnia, una experta en Yemen del Human Rights Watch, le confirmó a PolitiFact que Yemen no declaró la guerra a Israel. 

    “Los hutíes son apoyados por Irán y son virulentamente anti-Israel, lo cual es parte de su motivo por el cual están atacando a Israel”, dijo Jafarnia.

    Adonis Fakhri, el concejal ejecutivo de la embajada de la República de Yemen en los Estados Unidos, le dijo a PolitiFact que “los hutíes son un grupo rebelde que es designado como una organización terrorista por el gobierno legítimo e internacionalmente reconocido de Yemen”.

    El grupo rebelde hutí lanzó ataques a Israel, pero ellos no son considerados representantes oficiales de la República de Yemen. Calificamos la declaración de que Yemen le declaró la guerra a Israel como Falsa. 

    Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

    _______________________________________________

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

     



    Source