Category: Fact Check

  • Fact Check: Kansas City Chiefs didn’t issue statement about not participating in Pride Month

    Pride Month kicked off June 1 and the Kansas City Chiefs are among a handful of National Football League teams which, as of June 10, haven’t acknowledged it on social media.

    But one social media user took it a step further, claiming the defending Super Bowl champions  “refuse to participate in Pride Month,” because  ‘it’s Extremely Woke,’” the June 8 Facebook post’s caption said.

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

    The Facebook post links to a full story in the comments that said the Chiefs released an official statement that said, “While we support diversity and inclusion, we believe that the current iteration of Pride Month has become overly politicized and does not align with our team’s values. We have therefore decided not to participate in any Pride Month events or celebrations this year.”

    As of June 10, we found no evidence the Chiefs issued such a statement. The article making the claim is from a website that contains numerous fake headlines. A Google search of the headline shows it originated on a self-described satire site.

    (Facebook screenshot)

    The Chiefs did not immediately return a request for comment. We checked the Chiefs’ main social media accounts June 10 and did not find any posts about Pride Month — either supporting or opposing it. Nor did we find any statements saying the team wouldn’t participate, like the one shared in the Facebook post.

    The team’s website news page includes no posts about Pride Month as of June 10, and the Chiefs communications department’s X account has not posted since mid-February. We searched Google and the Nexis news database and found no articles about the Chiefs making an announcement about not participating in Pride Month.

    Although the Chiefs haven’t acknowledged Pride Month on social media, its official team pro shop sells Pride merchandise.

    Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker made headlines after giving a May commencement speech at the Catholic Benedictine College in which he referred to Pride Month as an example of one of the deadly sins “that has an entire month dedicated to it.” 

    The Facebook post links to a website with the nondescript name, “News Today.” It shows dozens of headlines, many of which negatively describe Pride month or athletes and celebrities not wanting to work with “woke” people. A Google search of the Chiefs headline shows it originated June 6 on a website called SpaceXMania, a self-described satire site.

    None of the “News Today” articles have bylines, and all say they are written by “admin.” The website, which made its first post in May, does not have a disclaimer that it’s satire, but the headlines are ridiculous and easily disproved.

    One headline claims Whoopi Goldberg was permanently kicked off “The View” set live on air for celebrating Pride. That did not happen. Goldberg was in her usual seat on “The View” set June 10. 

    Another headline claims Bud Light lost billions after appointing former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Coliп Kaeperпick as brand ambassador. That also did not happen. Snopes fact-checkers found a similar claim in May originated on a satire site.

    We rate the claim that the Kansas City Chiefs said they refuse to “participate in Pride Month” because ‘it’s extremely woke’ False. 

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Why Steve Bannon’s and Hunter Biden’s subpoena disputes differ

    After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon, a political strategist and former adviser to then-President Donald Trump, to serve a four-month prison term for contempt of Congress, social media users drew comparisons to President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

    A June 6 Instagram post showed a photo of Bannon with text above it that read, “A judge just sent Steve Bannon to prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Hunter did the same thing. No prison.”

    Other Instagram posts made similar claims. These posts lack context.

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

    Subpoenas are orders to produce records or testimony. Courts, government agencies and Congress have the power to issue subpoenas, and failure to comply can result in civil or criminal penalties.

    Although both Bannon and Biden disobeyed congressional subpoenas, Bannon received a prison sentence because he was convicted of contempt of Congress. Biden ultimately agreed to testify in front of Congress, so he did not face contempt charges.

    Steve Bannon appears in court in New York, Jan. 12, 2023. (AP)

    What happened when Steve Bannon was subpoenaed

    On Sept. 23, 2021, the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol subpoenaed Bannon, requiring him to produce documents and testify before the committee. Bannon refused to comply.

    Then, on Oct. 21, 2021, the House of Representatives voted 229-202 to hold Bannon in contempt for defying the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena. The vote was largely along party lines, with nine Republican members joining Democrats who then controlled the House.

    After this vote, the House referred the matter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., and Bannon was indicted on two counts of contempt of Congress; he was found guilty of these counts in July 2022.

    In October, 2022, he was sentenced to four months in prison and ordered to pay a $6,500 fine. (Each count of contempt of Congress is punishable up to one year in prison and up to $100,000 in fines, according to the Justice Department.)

    Judge Carl J. Nichols allowed Bannon to remain free while appealing the decision. After a federal appeals court in May upheld Bannon’s contempt conviction, Nichols ordered Bannon to report to prison by July 1.

    Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, talks to reporters as they leave a House Oversight Committee hearing as Republicans considered holding him in contempt of Congress, Jan. 10, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

    What happened when Hunter Biden was subpoenaed

    In November 2023, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Hunter Biden, demanding he appear before lawmakers in a closed-door meeting. House Republicans subpoenaed other Biden family members as well.

    The subpoenas were part of the Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Biden, which focused on Hunter Biden’s international business affairs and whether President Biden profited from them.

    Initially, Hunter Biden refused to comply with the subpoena, offering instead to testify at a public hearing. Republicans rejected this offer, saying they wanted Biden to testify privately first.

    After months of back and forth, both parties agreed in January to hold a private deposition Feb. 28 under terms that the meeting would not be filmed and House Republicans would quickly release a transcript.

    Before the agreement was reached, House Republicans had been preparing to bring a vote to the full chamber on whether to hold Biden in contempt of Congress. If the House had voted to hold Biden in contempt, the issue would have been referred to the Justice Department, as it was in Bannon’s case.

    Because Biden ultimately agreed to testify before Congress and he was not charged with contempt of Congress, he was not sentenced to prison.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Wins at the ballot box for abortion rights still mean court battles for access

    This story is republished from our news partners at KFF Health News.

    Before Ohio voters amended their constitution last year to protect abortion rights, the state’s attorney general, an anti-abortion Republican, said that doing so would upend at least 10 state laws limiting abortions.

    But those laws remain a hurdle and straightforward access to abortions has yet to resume, said Bethany Lewis, executive director of the Preterm abortion clinic in Cleveland. “Legally, what actually happened in practice was not much,” she said.

    Today, most of those laws limiting abortions — including a 24-hour waiting period and a 20-week abortion ban — continue to govern Ohio health providers, despite the constitutional amendment’s passage with nearly 57% of the vote. For abortion rights advocates, it will take time and money to challenge the laws in the courts.

    Voters in as many as 13 states could also weigh in this year on abortion ballot initiatives. But the seven states that have voted on abortion-related ballot measures since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections two years ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization show that an election can be just the beginning.

    The state-by-state patchwork of constitutional amendments, laws and regulations that determine where and how abortions are available across the country could take years to crystallize as old rules are reconciled with new ones in legislatures and courtrooms. And although a ballot measure result may seem clear-cut, the residual web of older laws often still needs to be untangled. Left untouched, the statutes could pop up decades later, as an Arizona law from 1864 did this year.

    Michigan was one of the first states where voters weighed in on abortion rights following the Dobbs decision in June 2022. In November of that year, Michigan voters approved by 13 percentage points an amendment to add abortion rights to the state constitution. It would be an additional 15 months, however, before the first lawsuit was filed to unwind the state’s existing abortion restrictions, sometimes called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP, laws. Michigan’s include a 24-hour waiting period.

    The delay had a purpose, according to Elisabeth Smith, state policy and advocacy director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit: It’s preferable to change laws through the legislature than through litigation because the courts can only strike down a law, not replace one.

    “It felt really important to allow the legislative process to go forward, and then to consider litigation if there were still statutes that were on the books the legislature hadn’t repealed,” Smith said.

    Michigan’s Democratic-led legislature did pass an abortion rights package last year that the state’s Democratic governor signed into law in December. But the package left some regulations intact, including the mandatory waiting period, mandatory counseling and a ban on abortions by nondoctor clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and midwives.

    Smith’s group filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice. Smith said it’s unclear how long the litigation will take, but she hopes for a decision this year.

    Abortion opponents such as Katie Daniel, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, are critical of the lawsuit and such policy unwinding efforts. She said abortion rights advocates used “deceptive campaigns” that claimed they wanted to restore the status quo in place before the Dobbs decision left abortion regulation up to the states.

    “The litigation proves these amendments go farther than they will ever admit in a 30-second commercial,” Daniel said. “Removing the waiting period, counseling, and the requirement that abortions be done by doctors endangers women and limits their ability to know about resources and support available to them.”

    A lawsuit to unwind most of the abortion restrictions in Ohio came from Preterm and other abortion providers four months after that state’s ballot measure passed. A legislative fix was unlikely because Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office. Preterm’s Lewis said she suspected the litigation will take “quite some time.”

    Dave Yost, the Ohio attorney general, is one of the defendants named in the suit. In a motion to dismiss the case, Yost argued that the abortion providers — which include several clinics and a physician, Catherine Romanos — lacked standing to sue.

    He argued that Romanos failed to show she was harmed by the laws, explaining that “under any standard, Dr. Romanos, having always complied with these laws as a licensed physician in Ohio, is not harmed by them.”

    Jessie Hill, an attorney representing Romanos and three of the clinics in the case, called the argument “just very wrong.” If Romanos can’t challenge the constitutionality of the old laws because she is complying with them, Hill said, then she would have to violate those laws and risk felonies to honor the new amendment.

    “So, then she’s got to go get arrested and show up in court and then defend herself based on this new constitutional amendment?” Hill said. “For obvious reasons, that is not a system that we want to have.”

    This year, Missouri is among the states poised to vote on a ballot measure to write protections for abortion into the state constitution. Abortions in Missouri have been banned in nearly every circumstance since 2022, but they were largely halted years earlier by a series of laws seeking to make abortions scarce.

    Over more than three decades, Missouri lawmakers instituted a 72-hour waiting period, imposed minimum dimensions for procedure rooms and hallways in abortion clinics, and mandated that abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, among other regulations.

    Emily Wales, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said trying to comply with those laws visibly changed her organization’s facility in Columbia, Missouri: widened doorways, additional staff lockers and even the distance between recovery chairs and door frames.

    Even so, by 2018 the organization had to halt abortion services at that Columbia location, she said, with recovery chairs left in position for a final inspection that never happened. That left just one abortion clinic operating in the state, a separate Planned Parenthood affiliate in St. Louis. In 2019, that organization opened a large facility about 20 miles away in Illinois, where lawmakers were preserving abortion access rather than restricting it.

    By 2021, the last full year before the Dobbs decision opened the door for Missouri’s ban, the number of recorded abortions in the state had dwindled to 150, down from 5,772 in 2011.

    “At that point, Missourians were generally better served by leaving the state,” Wales said.

    Both of Missouri’s Planned Parenthood affiliates have vowed to restore abortion services in the state as swiftly as possible if voters approve the proposed ballot measure. But the laws that diminished abortion access in the state would still be on the books and likely wouldn’t be overturned legislatively under a Republican-controlled legislature and governor’s office. The laws would surely face challenges in court, yet that could take a while.

    “They will be unconstitutional under the language that’s in the amendment,” Wales said. “But it’s a process.”

    Bram Sable-Smith: [email protected], @besables



    Source

  • Fact Check: Did Donald Trump oversee the biggest-ever one-year rise in murders?

    President Joe Biden tore into his expected 2024 opponent, former President Donald Trump, after Trump addressed the National Rifle Association May 18.

    “As president, Trump oversaw the largest increase in murder in U.S. history and he would make the gun violence epidemic worse if reelected,” Biden said in a campaign email.

    The email cited a September 2021 USA Today article that summarized newly released FBI crime data. The article cited a “nearly 30% increase in murders in 2020, the largest single-year jump since the bureau began recording crime statistics six decades ago.”
     


    (Screengrab from Biden-Harris campaign email, May 24, 2024.)

    Mathematically, Biden’s assertion holds up, but experts told us it also leaves out important context.

    What the numbers show

    By the FBI’s definition, “murder” refers to the willful killing of one human being by another, as determined by police investigation and not requiring judicial adjudication of a defendant or a coroner’s ruling. The definition encompasses murders and nonnegligent manslaughter. Excluded from the definition are deaths caused by negligence, suicide or accident and homicides deemed justifiable.

    In 2020, the number of U.S. murders reported to the FBI increased by 5,795, from 16,619 in 2019 to 22,414. 

    In any previous year going back to 1961, the number had never increased by more than 2,000 in a year. So, 2020’s increase was nearly triple the previous record.

    Going back to 1960, the first year of reliable national crime data, the increase from 2019 to 2020 “was the single largest one-year increase,” said Ernesto Lopez, a research specialist at the Council on Criminal Justice, an independent group that studies crime statistics and policy.

    It was a record-breaker both for the percentage change (about 35%) and the number of additional murder victims from one year to the next, said Jeff Asher, an analyst with the consulting company AH Datalytics who specializes in crime data.

    The last year for which the FBI officially released crime data was 2022. But experts say they do not expect that 2023 or 2024 will produce an increase as large as 2020’s. Preliminary data compiled independently from a cross-section of police departments signals nationwide murder numbers will decline in both years once they are officially tallied.

    A different dataset, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, paralleled the FBI’s data, finding the largest homicide increase in 100 years in 2020, at 30%. (Homicide is a broader category than murder.)

    One note about the FBI data: In 2021, the FBI changed how police departments report crime to the agency. Some large police departments, such as New York City and Los Angeles, did not change their reporting processes in time for the 2021 data deadline. Although that creates a larger margin of uncertainty for the FBI’s 2021 data, the agency always estimates nonreporting cities’ crime levels based on jurisdictions of similar size and demographics. Through these estimates, all cities are reflected in the data.

    Also, crime statistics experts told PolitiFact that the FBI’s 2021 data tracks other crime data studies that didn’t change their methodology that year. The only year for which FBI data was affected was for 2021.

    What caused the spike?

    Resting blame for the 2020 murder rise solely on Trump ignores how unusual life was in the United States in 2020.

    When Biden criticizes Trump’s record on job creation, he often leaves out the unprecedented swiftness and severity of the coronavirus pandemic, which hit the U.S. in March 2020. It upended the economy, changed collective travel habits, drove many people inside and temporarily left many Americans without a job and income.

    When considering at crime statistics, experts said, this omission is crucial. Although the pandemic surely made 2020 unusual, so did the murder of Minneapolis resident George Floyd while in police custody. Floyd’s killing triggered a national outcry and a reckoning on racial issues.

    “I would point to changing attitudes towards policing and police legitimacy as well as police pullbacks in the wake of Floyd’s death as potentially primary factors behind the increase,” Asher said. 

    Asher said that “there’s evidence that increased carrying of firearms in the months after the pandemic might have acted as an accelerant further inflaming the increase.”

    Council on Criminal Justice CEO Adam Gelb has called the environment of 2020 “a master class in criminology,” given its sudden onset, its duration and its dramatic impact on people and institutions.

    Experts said it’s inaccurate to blame Trump alone for the murder spike. Most likely, all of these factors combined and fed off one another, they said. It’s “not possible to disentangle each factor from the pandemic,” Asher said.

    During 2021, Biden’s first year in office, the murder rate remained high. Murders rose by 122 that year compared with 2020. They did not decline immediately after Biden took office. 

    Murders dropped by 1,380 from 2021 to 2022, but they remained higher than before the pandemic. Only with the unofficial, projected declines in 2023 and 2024 is the annual number of murders poised to return to its prepandemic level.

    Notably, today’s murder rate is far lower than it was a few decades ago — even factoring in the big 2020 spike. In 2020, there were 6.8 murders per 100,000 population. By contrast, the rate ranged from 8 per 100,000 population to 10 per 100,000 population from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s.

    Our ruling

    Biden said, “The last administration oversaw the largest increase in murders ever recorded.”

    Numerically, this is on target: The number of murders rose by 5,795 from 2019 to 2020, when Trump was president. That’s the largest one-year increase since such data began to be systematically recorded in the early 1960s.

    But it’s an exaggeration to blame this rise solely on Trump. Experts say that spike was caused by a confluence of the coronavirus pandemic and the societal upheaval after George Floyd’s murder. Murders also remained higher than prepandemic levels well into Biden’s tenure. 

    The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Ron Johnson said people shouldn’t trust early polling. His position is more nuanced than that.

    It’s not much of a surprise that President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are locked in a close race in battleground Wisconsin.

    Trump had a 2-point lead among both registered and likely voters in Wisconsin, the latest Marquette University Law School Poll found in April. 

    Other polls released in May showed Biden with a lead in Wisconsin. A New York Times/Siena College poll found Biden led in Wisconsin, but not five other battleground states. 

    In that poll, Biden was up two percentage points among registered voters in Wisconsin. Trump, however, had a 1-point lead among likely voters.

    A Quinnipiac poll showed Biden with a much larger, 6-point lead: 50% to 44% over Trump among registered voters in Wisconsin. 

    Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., was asked about those Wisconsin polls in a May 19 interview on NewsNation’s “The Hill Sunday.” 

    “As somebody who has run statewide three times, and seen polls wildly incorrect all three times, I just would not trust the early polls,” Johnson said.

    Johnson added there is no doubt that “Wisconsin is going to be a very close state.”

    PolitiFact Wisconsin was interested in Johnson’s claim, especially because polls of the Biden-Trump rematch in Wisconsin have shown some variation.

    First, we will look back at polls during Johnson’s three runs for U.S. Senate to see where they fell. Then, we’ll add some context about what to keep in mind when looking at early polls.

    Polling did show Johnson trailed in earlier months of the election cycle

    When we asked for backup, Johnson spokesperson Kiersten Pels shared a few poll examples, including a poll in which Johnson’s lead was much higher than his final margin and some in which his opponents were polling quite a bit above him, even in the weeks before the election.

    “Simply put, the polls were significantly wrong, especially in the last two races. He instinctively knew those races would be close, he ignored the polls, and was proven correct,” she said. “The elections were close.” 

    Since some polls are better than others, let’s look at averages of multiple polls collected by RealClearPolling.com during Johnson’s three U.S. Senate runs – in 2010, 2016 and 2022. 

    2010 election

    In 2010, Johnson ran against Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold. 

    According to RealClearPolling’s averages, Feingold was about 2 percentage points ahead of Johnson in July and August. Then Feingold was up about 1 point through mid-September.

    After the primary, Johnson pulled ahead of Feingold, polling 6 to 10 percentage points above Feingold for the rest of the race. Johnson won that election with 52%, compared with Feingold’s 47%.

    2016 election

    This election was a rematch of Johnson and Feingold. By that point, Johnson would have had more recognition as an incumbent. S,o if that was a factor in early polls in 2010, it was less so in 2016.

    Feingold had a lead over Johnson the entire race, according to RealClearPolling’s averages. Johnson trailed by more than 12 points between April and August of 2015 — which were very early polls.

    Feingold was still leading by upwards of 10 points for most of the campaign, until it narrowed in the last month or so. Johnson pulled off an upset that year, winning with about 50%, compared to Feingold’s 47%.

    2022 election

    Those averages are a little easier to parse. Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes had a 4-to-5 point lead until mid-September. 

    Around the time of the primary, their leads switched. Johnson stayed about three points ahead of Barnes for the rest of the campaign. Johnson won by just a percentage point: 50.5% to Barnes’ 49.5%.

    To summarize: Polling conducted in the early months of the election cycles did show Johnson trailing, though he won all three elections. That’s most obvious in 2016, when Feingold led essentially the entire time. 

    But does that mean the early polls are “wildly incorrect,” as Johnson said? It’s a little more complicated than that. 

    Polls are a snapshot in time rather than a predictor, Johnson’s 2016 race is a good example

    PolitiFact Wisconsin reached out to Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette University Law School Poll, for context. 

    “It’s an old line, but polls are a snapshot in time,” Franklin said. “A poll really is a measure of where opinion stands at the time that the poll was taken.”

    Although it’s inevitable that people will look at polls today as a prediction of where the race will end up months from now, that’s not the right way to look at it, he said. 

    Instead, polls “capture the dynamics of a campaign,” he said. Johnson’s run in 2016 is one of Franklin’s favorite examples of that. 

    “I think the polling captured the dynamics of that race extremely well, showing Johnson starting out trailing, but showing him running an effective campaign that closed the margin consistently, and ultimately put him in a position to win,” he said.

    Polls do get “better as predictors as you get later in the campaign,” Franklin said, and especially in the last two or three weeks. But even then, they’re not infallible. 

    Our ruling

    Johnson said he saw early polls that were “wildly incorrect” during each of his three statewide runs. 

    The heart of Johnson’s claim is accurate: Polls showed him trailing in the early months, despite pulling off a victory each time. That was most clear in 2016.

    When Johnson said not to trust the early polls, he wasn’t suggesting there was something wrong with the polling methodology itself. Instead, he’s getting at the idea that his polls didn’t match the final outcome.

    Still, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the polls were “wildly incorrect.” Polls aren’t supposed to predict the final election outcome, but show a snapshot of the campaign in time. 

    Our definition of Mostly True is “the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.” That fits here.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: Photo shows an Indianapolis police commander, not former President Donald Trump’s probation officer

    An image of a police commander from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is spreading on social media with the false claim that she is former President Donald Trump’s probation officer. 

    “Meet: Rohondra Williams Trumps probation officer,” text above a photo of the officer reads. 

    (Screengrab from Facebook)

    A June 1 Threads post sharing the image 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.)

    A reverse-image search of the photo led to a 2022 Justice Department post about policing “while Black and female.” It includes the photo of the officer, Nikole Pilkington, who was then a sergeant. 

    An Indiana Fox News television affiliate reported in February that the Indianapolis police chief appointed Pilkington to his command staff that month. 

    The police department posted on its X account June 4 to say it knew Pilkington’s photo was circulating on social media but that “no IMPD officer nor Commander Pilkington has been involved in the New York Trump case or has been assigned as a probation officer in this case.” 

    Trump was convicted May 30 of multiple felony counts in a Manhattan falsified documents case. The New York Unified Court System lays out what happens next: A probation officer interviews the defendant and checks their criminal record as part of a pre-sentence report that the judge will use to decide the defendant’s punishment. 

    We found no evidence that a probation officer has been assigned to Trump or that such information has been made public. 

    The New York Unified Court System and the New York City Department of Probation didn’t immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the case.

    But the person pictured in this Threads post is not Trump’s probation officer. 

    We rate that claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: No, former President Donald Trump didn’t ‘blow off his post-sentencing probation report’

    Former President Donald Trump was convicted May 30 of multiple felony counts in a historic Manhattan criminal case over falsified documents. 

    Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, which means a recent Threads post reporting on what Trump did after his sentencing would require a time machine. 

    “Trump blew off his post-sentencing probation report,” the June 3 Threads post said. “An ordinary felon would be slammed in jail for that. He ran when he discovered there was a drug test involved.”

    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.)

    Before he decides Trump’s punishment, Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, will consult a presentence report made by probation officers, according to the New York Unified Court System. 

    Such a report, which makes a recommendation for sentencing, comes after a defendant’s conviction and before sentencing. Probation officers — or a social worker or psychologist working for the New York City Probation Department — interview criminal defendants and check their criminal records to create these reports. The probation officers may also talk to any related crime victims, the arresting officer and the defendant’s family and friends. 

    A probation officer interviews defendants and checks their criminal record as part of a presentence report that the judge will use to decide defendants’ punishments. 

    The New York Unified Court System and the New York City Department of Probation didn’t immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the case.

    But we found no credible news reports or court filings that a probation officer has been assigned to Trump, that such information has been made public. We also found no reports or filings to say Trump skipped an interview with a probation officer or did so because he feared a drug test. 

    After his conviction, a court clerk gave Trump a “court order for investigation and report,” directing him to “report immediately to the department of probation,” Business Insider said.

    That doesn’t mean Trump then went to the probation department. His lawyers can call the department to schedule an interview, a former Manhattan prosecutor told the publication. 

    Trump attorney Will Scharf, meanwhile, said June 2 during a ABC News interview that Trump will appeal his conviction but cooperate with the presentence investigation in the meantime. 

    Martin Horn, a former commissioner of the New York City Department of Probation and professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told PolitiFact a probation officer will be assigned to conduct a presentence investigation on behalf of the judge within 10 days of the guilty verdict, if one hasn’t already been assigned in Trump’s case.

    The presentence report must be completed 24 hours before sentencing, he said.

    Horn said he hadn’t heard of Trump not complying with the presentence investigation. And that’s not something the probation department would normally make public, he said. 

    We rate claims Trump “blew off his post-sentencing probation report” False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: US-Mexico border crossings are down, as Joe Biden says, but single cause is hard to pinpoint

    President Joe Biden issued a new directive June 4 to limit the number of migrants seeking asylum at the southern U.S. border. 

    Biden’s proclamation comes weeks before he and former President Donald Trump face off in their first 2024 presidential debate and as they battle over their records on immigration policies. 

    The Biden administration’s directive suspends and limits the entry of certain noncitizens into the U.S. across the southern border when the Homeland Security secretary determines that there has been an average of 2,500 encounters or more at the border over seven consecutive days. To halt the suspension, the numbers would have to drop to fewer than 1,500 encounters on average seven days in a row. 

    Encounters data represents events, not people. For example, if one person tries to cross the border three times and is stopped each time, that would be counted as three encounters. This data also doesn’t tell us how many people stayed in the U.S.

    The order takes effect immediately because current daily encounters exceed 2,500, according to the administration.

    In a speech June 4 at the White House, Biden said the numbers of encounters are dropping already.

    “The facts are clear, due to the arrangements that I’ve reached with (Mexican) President (Andrés Manuel López) Obrador, the number of migrants coming … to our shared border unlawfully in recent months has dropped dramatically,” Biden said. “While these steps are important, they’re not enough to truly secure the border.”

    We found that the encounter numbers have dropped in recent months amid increased interceptions by Mexico. But immigration experts told PolitiFact it’s difficult to pinpoint one reason for any change in migration numbers. 

    The White House pointed to the latest publicly available data from the U.S. Border Patrol showing immigration officials encountered people illegally crossing the border about 128,900 times in April compared with about 250,000 in December. That’s a 48.4% decrease. The numbers of encounters at ports of entry have also dropped

    During a May 13 news conference, López Obrador said the number of migrants reaching the southern U.S. border had dropped by about 50%.

    Mexico’s crackdown on migrant crossings

    David Bier, immigration studies director at the libertarian Cato institute, said Biden is correct to attribute border encounter declines to actions by Mexico, but offered a caveat.

    “Mexico is making unprecedented arrests,” Bier said. “I believe that it is unsustainable because, although Mexico is arresting them and sending them to southern Mexico, they are not deporting them to their home countries. This means that it is very likely they will ultimately find their way to the United States because they are still in Mexico, and there’s not much for them to do there except keep trying to get to the U.S.”

    U.S. officials said Mexico’s willingness to stop migrants from entering the U.S. is largely because of increased dialogue between the two countries.

    Biden and López Obrador have spoken multiple times since late 2023 and have released joint statements over the last several months about joint efforts to curb immigration, fentanyl and firearms trafficking.

    U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken also went to Mexico in December to meet with their Mexican counterparts. 

    “As we made clear in Mexico City today, we are committed to partnering with Mexico to address our shared challenges, including managing unprecedented irregular migration in the region, reopening key ports of entry, and combating illicit fentanyl and other synthetic drugs,” Blinken wrote Dec. 27 on X.

    A White House summary of a conversation in April between Biden and López Obrador said the two politicians ordered their national security teams to apply measures that would  “significantly reduce irregular border crossings” and to address the root causes of the migration.

    U.S. immigration experts said it’s difficult to isolate single causes for any change in the number of arrivals at the border, but agreed that Mexico vastly increased its enforcement efforts after discussions between the two nations.

    However, “there is no reason to think that this drop will be long-lasting, especially considering the number of migrants who are likely stranded in Mexico right now,” said Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at Washington Office on Latin America, a group advocating for human rights in the Americas. 

    “No crackdown in the last 10 years has had a lasting impact, not even Title 42,” he said. Title 42 is a public health policy invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to decrease the number of migrants entering the U.S.

    Whether the declines continue is uncertain, because migrants and migrant smugglers “have proven highly adaptable to changes in policy, process, operations and even infrastructure,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, senior adviser for immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank. “We have not seen sustained decreases in arrivals after policy changes in the past.”

    The data also doesn’t reflect the changing demographics and nationalities of people arriving, nor the factors sending them to the border. Continued fluctuation in numbers of arrivals is expected if there is no consistent immigration policy to address the ongoing migration crisis, Brown said.

    Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that  supports low levels of immigration, said it’s hard to say how much Mexico’s actions have contributed to the decline, but that the numbers are still high. “It is possible their actions matter, but even if they do, we have no idea if Mexico will continue to take action nor do we know if the smugglers and migrants will simply adapt and the modest decline will disappear.”

    Our ruling

    Biden said, “Due to the arrangements that I’ve reached with President Obrador, the number of migrants coming … to our shared border unlawfully in recent months has dropped dramatically.”

    U.S. Border Patrol data shows immigrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped in recent months. Immigration experts said it’s difficult to pinpoint a single reason for any change in border crossings, but acknowledged that the decrease comes amid more cooperation between the two countries.

    Biden’s statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

    RELATED: The context behind Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s dueling immigration speeches at the Texas border

    PolitiFact Staff Writers Maria Ramirez Uribe and Maria Briceño contributed to this report. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: Please reject this fake news story about Denzel Washington rebuffing ‘woke’ Robert De Niro

    Robert De Niro recently campaigned for President Joe Biden, criticizing former President Donald Trump outside of his Manhattan criminal trial May 28. But subsequent claims the actor is now too “woke” for other big Hollywood stars aren’t accurate. 

    “Breaking: Denzel Washington rejects $100 million Disney offer to work with ‘woke’ Robert De Niro,” a June 4 Facebook post said. “‘He’s a creepy old man.’”

    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.)

    This claim originated in January on a self-described satire Facebook account. 

    Searching for credible news reports about Washington and De Niro, we found nothing that reflected a scuttled deal such as the one described here. 

    We rate this post False.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: Old photo of actor Chris Evans signing a model artillery shell recirculated amid Gaza offensive

    Nikki Haley, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, South Carolina governor and onetime Republican presidential candidate, recently drew criticism for writing “Finish Them!” on an Israeli artillery shell amid Israel’s continuing offensive in Gaza. 

    Since then, some social media users unearthed a 2016 photo of actor Chris Evans, who has starred as Captain America in Marvel movies. 

    “Chris Evans aka Captain America,” read text above a picture posted June 1 on Facebook. It showed Evans signing something being held by a man wearing a U.S. Air Force uniform. “While you sign petitions, he signs bombs.”

    An image of a Palestinian flag and the words “free Palestine” appear above the text.  

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

    The image was taken in Turkey in December 2016 when Evans, among other celebrities, visited  the Incirlik Air Base as part of that year’s USO tour. 

    In an May 31 Instagram story, Evans wrote, “There’s a lot of misinformation surrounding this picture.” 

    “Some clarification,” he continued. “This image was taken during a USO tour in 2016. I went with a group of actors, athletes and musicians to show appreciation for our service members. The object I was asked to sign is not a bomb, or a missile, or a weapon of any kind.”

    The story has since expired, but The Hollywood Reporter reported Evans referred users to a February Agence France-Presse article in which a U.S. Air Force spokesperson said Evans was signing an artillery shell model intended for training — not an actual explosive device. 

    We rate claims this image shows Evans signing a bomb during the assault on Gaza False.

     



    Source