迷你词

一个毫无根据的网上谣言，一个梅拉尼亚-相似的外观出现在第一夫人的事件上，是基于一个扭曲的视频。

【宣称】

视频显示了一个 “假” 梅拉尼亚·特朗普站在旁边的总统.

【结论】

假

【原文】

A bizarre rumor holding that President Trump was using a Melania Trump body double at a press conference took hold on social media in October 2017 after Facebook user Andrea Wagner Barton posted photographic “evidence” of the charge:

Will the real Melania please stand up? 

Is it me or during his speech today a decoy “stood in” for Melania?? 

And….

Why would the moron say “my wife, Melania, who happens to be right here…” 

Seriously, watch very closely!

A video purportedly showing this “fake” Melania Trump was also widely circulated on social media. As of this writing, Barton’s post has racked up more than 9 million views:

The evidence provided above is flimsy at best. In fact, it appears that the conspiracy theorists pushing this rumor purposely used a blurry (and possibly distorted) video of Melania Trump in order to make this claim seem more plausible. 

The footage above was captured by filming a television screen showing a CNN report from 13 October 2017. When compared to the actual video available on CNN‘s web site, it’s apparent that the strange visual was caused by the TV screen and not a faux first lady. 

Here’s a screenshot from the Facebook video (left) compared to a still from the video available on CNN.com. Note that Melania’s face is slightly shrunken, distorted, and rounder  in the Facebook video: 

This not evidence of a body double. It’s evidence of a poorly working television.

Several other images of the first lady from the same day are also available from news organizations such as Getty Images and the Associated Press. Many of those photographs, such as the following image from the White House, featured the first lady sans sunglasses, clearly showing that this woman is in fact Melania Trump and not some impostor:

The “Melania body double” rumor came back for second lap around the track in July 2018, as pictures of President Trump and the first lady while they were in Brussels for the NATO Summit showed the president accompanied by a woman who seemingly resembled, but did not look exactly like, Melania:

Fake Melania is back y’all pic.twitter.com/EuaTpPkjPN

— James St. James (@JSJdarling) July 10, 2018

I swear that this looks like fake Melania. pic.twitter.com/nudfbyqMrJ

— Nurse Ratchett (@mycrankyboosez) July 11, 2018

The #FakeMelania “body double” rumor took another lap around the track in March 2019 when the First Couple made a trip to Alabama to survey tornado damage:

Hosts of “The View” commented on how the woman at Trump’s side in photos of the trip appeared shorter than usual and had a different facial structure than the first lady’s. One host allowed that the first lady might have been wearing flat shoes.

In fact, the 5-foot-11 first lady had ditched her customary stilettos for sneakers to walk around the rough terrain with the 6-foot-3 Trump.

阿拉莫市特朗普火车 Facebook 集团似乎被用来组织车队的运动。

【宣称】

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的武装支持者骚扰了德克萨斯州的 Biden-Harris 竞选巴士，导致三项竞选活动和新闻发布会的取消。

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

On Friday Oct. 30, 2020, video was shared on social media that showed a Biden-Harris bus surrounded by pickup trucks flying flags in support of U.S. President Donald Trump on Interstate 35 in Texas. A white pickup truck appeared to slowly pull in front of the bus to slow its speed. Seconds later, a dark-colored truck and a white SUV that appeared to accompany the campaign bus can be seen side-swiping each other. 

These tactics have no place in Texas, my home state, and no place in America.

Please vote. Please volunteer this weekend. The future of our democracy is at stake. pic.twitter.com/G0O4yg2vnJ

— Dr. Eric Cervini (@ericcervini) October 31, 2020

However, CBS DFW reported, “Neither Biden nor his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, were on the bus.”

This story is developing and will be updated should any new evidence come to light.

总统的批评家锁定了他使用的短语 “乔的镜头，” 在一次讲话中，在 2020 年 10 月。他到底说了什么？

【宣称】

在 2020 年 10 月 27 日的演讲中，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普呼吁暗杀乔·拜登。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In October 2020, less than a week before Election Day, multiple online observers and campaigners critical of U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he had been caught on camera at a rally in Michigan, calling for the assassination of his rival, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. 

On Oct. 27, the Lincoln Project, an influential group led by erstwhile Republican strategists who are supporting Biden’s candidacy and are virulently opposed to Trump, posted a short clip of the president’s rally in Lansing, Michigan, along with the claim, “Trump is calling for the assassination of his political opponent.” In the 16-second video, originally posted by reporter Andrew Feinberg, Trump says:

“That’s why they’re talking about the, that’s why they talk about the 25th Amendment, right? Three weeks. Three weeks in, Joe’s shot, ‘Let’s go Kamala, you ready?’ Most liberal person in the Senate. She makes Bernie Sanders look like a serious conservative.”

Trump is calling for the assassination of his political opponent. pic.twitter.com/Hc85JHqHIL

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) October 27, 2020

On Sep. 19, 2020, Trump spoke at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and attacked Biden as “the dumbest of all candidates” and “the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics.” He later added: “Now he’s shot, he’s got like half of his head left…he’s totally shot, and he ends up getting the nomination. He couldn’t get it in prime time. What the hell is going on with the world today?”

As far back as June 25, 2020, Trump told voters at a town hall event in Wisconsin:

“I don’t think Biden’s a radical [Leftist], but it doesn’t matter because they’re just going to do whatever they want to do. They’ll take him over, he can’t perform, he’s not going to be able to perform. He’s shot. He’s shot. Whether you like it or not, he’s shot. The radical Left is going to take him over.”

On Oct. 14, he told the conservative television network Newsmax that Biden’s “mind is blown”:

How can you vote for Joe? Joe is — Joe is shot. I say it openly, he’s shot. He’s 50 percent, and when he was 100 percent he was a dumb guy. And now he’s 50 percent. And he can’t put two sentences together…and the [Democratic] party is going to replace him very quickly, because he can’t possibly do this job. I know this job very well. I deal with the toughest, sharpest people in the world. Joe Biden has to be in the category, he can’t be — his mind is blown. 

搜索词和头条新闻在谷歌的 “趋势搜索” 以及突发新闻移动通知中的流行连锁。

【宣称】

芝士蛋糕工厂正在关闭所有的餐厅。

【结论】

假

【原文】

On Oct. 30, 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic was hitting all-time highs for cases in the U.S., the search term “cheesecake factory closing restaurants” showed up in Google’s “Trending Searches” on mobile phones:

The news also showed up as a News Break notification:

idk how much more i can take… cheesecake factory closing its doors and tb ousting the mexican pizza. pic.twitter.com/YdV3OY3J75

— six inches is enough (@6inchesisenuff) October 30, 2020

However, The Cheesecake Factory is not closing all of its restaurants. The trending search and notification referenced the fact that RockSugar Southeast Asian Kitchen was being closed. That restaurant is owned by The Cheesecake Factory Inc.

The scare for fans of The Cheesecake Factory appeared to come from an Oct. 30 Yahoo Life story that said The Cheesecake Factory Inc. “also operates a smaller number of additional restaurant concepts, several of which have shuttered locations this year. The casual-dining restaurant group just announced the closure of RockSugar Southeast Asian Kitchen, an Asian fusion restaurant in Los Angeles owned and operated by the restaurant group.”

On Oct. 29, 2020, The Cheesecake Factory Inc. reported its third quarter 2020 fiscal financial results, providing the following update via the Associated Press:

As of today, approximately 90% of the Company’s restaurants across its concepts, including 187 Cheesecake Factory locations, are operating with reopened indoor dining rooms with limited capacity in accordance with local mandates and social distancing protocols. On average, Cheesecake Factory restaurants with reopened dining rooms are operating at 50% capacity. Approximately 7% of the Company’s restaurants across its concepts, including 17 Cheesecake Factory locations, are operating with reopened patios with social distancing in accordance with California and Toronto dining restrictions. Currently, two locations, including one Cheesecake Factory restaurant, are operating an off-premise only model and five locations across the Company’s concepts are currently closed.

As of October 2020, The Cheesecake Factory restaurant locations are not closing their doors.

这位演员在 2020 年 10 月借给亲拜登广告他独特的声音。

【宣称】

演员萨姆·埃利奥特公开表示，他个人支持乔·拜登在 2020 年的总统候选人。

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

In October 2020, readers asked Snopes to verify reports that the actor Sam Elliott had endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, after providing the voiceover for a Biden campaign ad during that month’s World Series.

For example, on Oct. 21, Newsweek reported that:

A video featuring the voice of Sam Elliott premiered Tuesday night during the first game of the Major League Baseball World Series. However, this wasn’t a commercial for his latest movie playing a cowboy or similarly-minded, hard-living outlaw. Over piano accompaniment of the “Star Spangled Banner,” the baritone-voiced actor known for films like A Star is Born, The Big Lebowski, and Road House calmly and resolutely speaks of America while endorsing Joe Biden for president.

Meredith Corporation news stations KMOV4 and KCTV5 published a report with the headline “Sam Elliott Endorses Joe Biden in New Ad,” and similar articles were posted by KRON4 and PopCulture.com. 

Multiple reputable sources reported that Elliott, who is renowned for his deep, distinctive voice, narrated the Biden campaign ad, entitled “Go From There,” which first aired on Oct. 20. He also appears to have voiced a pro-Biden, anti-Trump ad for the Lincoln Project, a group of erstwhile Republican political consultants campaigning against Trump’s reelection. 

埃克森加油站标志的病毒图像于 2020 年 10 月在选举日之前共享。

【宣称】

在美国总统奥巴马和副总统乔·拜登的管理下，美国天然气价格平均大大超过每加仑 5 美元。

【结论】

假

【原文】

Gas prices have long been a subject of fake photos, old email forwards, and even political discussion. In October 2020, just as Election Day was approaching with the contest between U.S. President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, memes showing photographs of Exxon gas station signs were shared thousands of times on Facebook. Pricing on the signs showed figures of $5.39 and $5.49 per gallon for regular, unleaded gasoline. 

A post sharing one of the memes read: “Remember the good old days when Barrack and Joe were in charge??? Let me refresh your memory.” It also included the words: “Just a reminder of what things looked like the last time Biden was in the White House.”

One commenter responded: “Yes I remember!!”

Another had similar wording: “Just a friendly reminder of how things were, the last time Biden held office.”

These memes were grossly misleading.

Both photos appeared to show prices in the spring of 2012 at one gas station in Washington D.C., located at 2708 Virginia Ave. NW, an area normally congested with both foot and vehicle traffic. The gas station is less than a mile from the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial, and Vietnam Veterans Memorial. In fact, the gas station (now a Valero) is located right next to the Watergate buildings. A Getty Images caption for one of the images reads: “According to AAA the average price of gas has climbed three tenths of a cent nationwide as a result of high oil prices and tensions tied to Iran’s nuclear program.”

In March 2012, the same month the second image was photographed, The Washington Post reported: “According to AAA’s national survey of gas prices, a gallon of regular-grade fuel is averaging $4.15 in the District. The average price was about $3.85 a gallon a month ago.” The Washington Post also wrote: “The District is topped by only four states where gas averages more than $4 a gallon. Its prices are surpassed by those in Illinois, Alaska, California and Hawaii, where the average is $4.54 a gallon.”

However, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the national gas price average over the eight years that Obama and Biden were in office was $2.96 per gallon for regular, unleaded gasoline. By comparison, the same data showed that the previous eight years under President George W. Bush saw an average of $2.13 per gallon. Under Trump’s first term through October 2020, the comparative price was $2.53.

The memes contain the words “the last time Biden held office” and “the last time Biden was in the White House.” In December 2016 —  the last full month that Obama and Biden were in office — regular, unleaded gasoline prices averaged $2.25 per gallon nationally.

In the same March 2012 story from The Washington Post, more information about “uncertainty” in the Middle East was reported:

There may be hope on the horizon: The price of crude oil, a major driver of gas prices, has held steady this month after escalating over the winter because of uncertainty in the Middle East.

According to a survey published by Lundberg, an independent market research group, this could help steady U.S. gas prices later this spring and summer.

But other oil analysts caution that further price rises are possible if turbulence grows in the Middle East or if the economy heats up and oil supplies fall.

在 Facebook 上流传的米姆引起一些人相信，国家已经颁布了节日规则。

【宣称】

在 Facebook 上流传的米姆描述了加州 2020 年感恩节和圣诞节假期聚会的官方 COVID-19 规则。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In late October 2020, readers asked Snopes to verify online claims that California Gov. Gavin Newsom had imposed a stringent list of restrictions for holiday gatherings, specifically around Thanksgiving and Christmas, to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Like many parts of the United States, California is experiencing an upward trend in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations. But California has yet to issue guidance specific to holding Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings amid the ongoing health crisis, a public health department spokesperson told us by email.

So where did this piece of viral COVID-19 misinformation come from? It appears it originated with various news websites that conflated an Oct. 9, 2020, California Department of Public Health list of general requirements with requirements for the upcoming holidays, and then the list took meme form on Facebook.

For example, one headline from Newsweek, published Oct. 22, 2020, read, “California Gov. Newsom’s Thanksgiving Rules Explained as Severe Restrictions Put in Place.” A second headline from Newsweek, published Oct. 26, 2020, read, “California Gov. Newsom’s Thanksgiving Rules Blasted By Celebrities.”

These stories were followed by a report headlined, “California releases crazy mandatory guidance for private gatherings this Holiday season,” posted by KUSI, a San Diego television station. The KUSI story contained the following graphic that falsely claimed the guidance targeted holiday gatherings. The graphic was then de-coupled from the KUSI story and went viral on its own on Facebook:

The meme led many to believe that the image depicted official restrictions from the state of California for Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, which is not true.

As we noted above, the guidance issued on Oct. 9, 2020, by the state health department (not Newsom’s office) applies to private gatherings and makes no mention of the holidays.

A spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health told us via email that as of this writing, the department hasn’t issued guidance for Thanksgiving or Christmas and that, “Guidance specific to Thanksgiving is forthcoming.”

However, the agency pointed out that certain activities put people at greater risk of contracting the virus:

“In general, the more people from different households a person interacts with at a gathering, the closer the physical interaction is, and the longer the interaction lasts, the higher the risk that a person with a COVID-19 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, may spread it to others,” meaning the safest way to gather is to interact with people in the same household or do so virtually.

The coronavirus has killed more than 228,000 Americans as of this writing and sickened nearly 9 million. However, mitigation measures meant to slow the spread of the virus and protect public health, such as mask-wearing and quarantines, have been politicized.

交通堵塞造成乘坐公共汽车前往集会参加者的延误，使一些人暂时陷入困境。

【宣称】

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普 2020 年 10 月在内布拉斯加州举行的竞选集会的一些与会者暂时滞留在寒冷之中。

【结论】

真

【原文】

A campaign rally for U.S. President Donald Trump in Omaha, Nebraska, drew thousands of attendees, and hundreds were stranded in freezing temperatures after the event waiting for transport back to their parked cars miles away, according to Omaha police and news reports.

Viral news stories and social media posts about the incident prompted readers to ask Snopes whether it’s true that rally attendees were left stranded in the cold well after the president had departed, and whether some of them were then treated for cold exposure.

It is true. The Trump campaign blamed a larger-than-expected crowd and snarled traffic due to local road closures for the delays.

“Because of the sheer size of the crowd, we deployed 40 shuttle buses – double the normal allotment – but local road closures and resulting congestion caused delays,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Samantha Zager said in an emailed statement. “At the guest departure location, we had tents, heaters, generators, hot cocoa, and handwarmers available for guests.”

Pecha said that according to preliminary reports from that night, 30 people were contacted by emergency personnel for medical reasons and seven were transported to hospitals “with a variety of medical conditions” through the duration of the rally and after. News reports indicated that temperature, with wind chill, dipped into the 20s.

Journalists who witnessed the events and emergency scanner traffic indicated that some of those assisted by emergency responders were suffering from the effects of cold exposure in the event’s aftermath.

Pecha said the last rally attendee was loaded onto a bus at 11:50 p.m. — almost three hours after the event ended.

The chaos predictably drew criticism from Trump’s political opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who said that Trump “gets his photo op and then he gets out. He leaves everyone else to suffer the consequence of his failure to make a responsible plan.”

Trump had already been facing criticism for holding packed campaign rallies in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Nebraska, meanwhile, is experiencing a surge in coronavirus hospitalizations.

阿什利·拜登在 2020 年民主国民大会上介绍了她的父亲。

【宣称】

一张照片捕捉乔·拜登不适当地与一个年轻女孩发布。

【结论】

字幕错误

【原文】

During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media users circulated a photograph showing Democratic nominee Joe Biden and a young girl, along with text implying that the picture captured Biden at something (unspecified) that was inappropriate:

This type of post was intended to stir up baseless accusations of pedophilia that partisans have attempted promulgate against Biden and other Democrats.

However, the image used here is about as innocent as can be, and there is no rational reason to expect it will soon “become almost impossible to find,” as the meme declares. It’s merely an AP-distributed photograph capturing Biden on the presidential campaign trail in 1987 with his 6-year-old daughter Ashley:

In this Aug. 1, 1987, file photo, six-year-old Ashley Biden, daughter of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., gets a taste of campaigning with her dad in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo)

Ashley and her brother Hunter (virtually) introduced their father at the 2020 Democratic National Convention:

这张照片不是新的，卡片可能不属于玛利亚·奥巴马，而且没有证据将它与猎人拜登联系起来。

【宣称】

亨特·拜登的笔记本电脑上发现了玛利亚·奥巴马的信用卡的新照片，以及拜登打鼾的设备上的可卡因行。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In October 2020, a photograph supposedly showing a credit card belonging to Malia Obama, the daughter of former U.S. President Barack Obama, was circulated on social media along with a variety of claims related to Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. 

One post, for example, claimed that this photograph came from the hard drive of a laptop that supposedly belonged to Hunter Biden — a controversial subject in its own right that we’ll address below — and that it showed how Biden had used Obama’s credit card to snort lines of cocaine off the surface of the device:

New picture off Hunters laptop…. this is getting worse and worse…. he was either doing cocaine with Malia Obama, or just had her card because that’s what usually happens, right??? LMAOOO. WHAT A SORRY POS!!

However, this picture is several months old, there’s little evidence to support the claim that this credit card belongs to Malia Obama, and no evidence exists to show that this picture was taken from Biden’s laptop. 

This photograph has been online since at least December 2019. At the time, celebrity websites circulated it in articles claiming that Obama’s credit card had been stolen by hackers. MTO News, for instance, reported:

Malia Obama’s credit card was stolen and posted online by hackers, MTO News has learned.

It’s not clear how the hackers got ahold of Malia’s card, or whether they used it – but a photo of the president’s daughter’s card showed up on Twitter this morning also conspicuously next to lines of what appears to be cocaine.

However, we’re skeptical that this card actually belongs to Barack Obama’s daughter, and not another person perhaps named Malia Obama, as this picture appears to show that whoever owned the card had been a “member since 2011.” First daughter Malia Obama was 13 years old in 2011. While some credit card companies allow minors to become authorized users under an adult’s account, we don’t know if that was the case here, and the minimum age to open a personal credit card is 18.

The claim that this picture was pulled from Biden’s laptop appears to be made out of whole cloth.

In October 2020, the New York Post published an article claiming that it had obtained material from a laptop Biden owned. This story raised some immediate red flags, which included the fact that more than 50 former intelligence officials suspected the story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign; that some reporters at the news outlet refused to attach their bylines to the story; and that several news outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, were reportedly reluctant to report on the story because much of the information could not be verified. 

Regardless of whether the picture truly showed Biden’s laptop and the credit card of the former president’s daughter, no evidence indicates the photograph was found on the laptop hard drive. The New York Post has published several documents that it claimed came from the laptop, but this photograph was not one of them. 

Biden 在 COVID-19 被确定为新出现的威胁之前几周写道：“我们还没有为大流行做好准备。

【宣称】

乔·拜登在 COVID-19 疫情开始前几周发微博说：“我们还没有为大流行做好准备。”

【结论】

真

【原文】

In late October 2020, barely a week before the upcoming U.S. presidential election in which the COVID-19 pandemic that had killed 225,000 Americans to date was a major issue, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was heavily criticized for declaring that “We’re not going to control the pandemic.”

At the same time, social media users were circulating a purported tweet from presidential candidate Joe Biden in which he purportedly issued a prescient warning, barely a month before the first known case of the coronavirus disease, that said “We are not prepared for a pandemic” due to President Donald Trump’s rollbacks of progress in global health security:

This tweet was in fact genuine, posted to Joe Biden’s Twitter account on Oct. 25, 2019. The tweet was prompted by an article published the previous day by The Washington Post detailing a recent Global Health Security Index report which assessed that “no country — the United States included — is fully prepared to respond to a deliberate or accidental [outbreak] threat with the potential to wipe out humanity.”

“We are not prepared for a pandemic,” the former vice president wrote, several weeks ahead of COVID-19’s being identified as an emerging threat. “Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores”:

We are not prepared for a pandemic. Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores. //t.co/1qqpgayUEX

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 25, 2019

It is believed that the patient with the first identified case of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease began exhibiting symptoms of that malady on Dec. 1, 2019 — just over five weeks after Biden’s tweet about America’s lack of pandemic preparedness.

民主党总统候选人没有提出 3％ 的财产税。

【宣称】

Joe Biden 的税收计划包括对私人住宅征收 3% 的联邦财产税。

【结论】

假

【原文】

During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:

However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes.

The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses):

Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a “donut hole” in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed.

Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent.

Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation.

Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions.

Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000.

Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000.

Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals.

Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent.

For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate.

Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Biden’s homebuyers’ credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers.

Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels.

Similar analysis of Biden’s tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax.

该法 “并没有使公共雇主绝对保险公司免受所有不法行为”，这是一个由三名法官组成的小组，审理一名监狱看守的性攻击案件。

【宣称】

艾米·康尼·巴雷特推翻了下级法院的裁决，要求监狱看守负责赔偿一名女囚犯，他曾多次强奸。

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013:

Martin arrived at the jail in February 2013 at the age of 19. She soon learned she was pregnant. She testified she could not control her activities or movements in jail; the guards did. Thicklen raped Martin in jail. He had sexual contact with her three times while she was pregnant, including vaginal intercourse, and two times after delivery.

[Thicklen] told her he was in gray and she was in blue, and his co-workers would believe him and not her. She understood him to mean “he’s in authority and … he has power over me.” She understood him to mean his co-workers would believe anything he said; he could falsely say she tried to grab or hit him, or tried to take his taser or gun, and she would be punished. She testified, “I believed everything he said…. I knew that his authority over me would trump anything that I said.”

Martin testified that during each sexual assault, Thicklen was in uniform, armed, and on duty working for County. All five assaults occurred in jail. Every time, he had to use his keys, power, and authority. He told her he would be fired if people found out. He took steps to hide the assaults. For example, he assaulted her off camera. Finally, on December 3, 2013, she reported the sexual assaults when she was concerned he possibly gave her a disease which spread to her child. An investigation began that day. She was transferred the next day. Thicklen was dismissed and prosecuted.

This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had “reversed the lower court’s decision to award” money to the victim:

As is often the case, the meme presented a simplified version of facts that could be considered misleading.

Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not “overturn” the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen’s actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone — and not the county — was liable for paying those damages:

Here, we may take it as granted that the sexual assaults occurred during the authorized time and space limits of Thicklen’s employment (although there may be some question about whether Thicklen was actually authorized to be in the particular locations of the sexual assaults at the times he perpetrated them).

But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his employment …

Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County’s training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff’s Office’s mission.

Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would “belong to” and “benefit” only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee’s being “at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer” is a sine qua non of scope.

Martin presented no evidence at trial that the sexual abuse was similar in kind to work Thicklen was employed to perform. This case is distinguishable from cases involving excessive force by police officers. Some force, even deadly force, is sometimes permissible for police officers. But the rapes in this case were not part of a spectrum of conduct that shades into permissible zones. Inmate rape by a guard usually involves no gray areas.

Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million — a fact the panel recognized:

As an aside, we note our conclusion is consistent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s understanding of the public policy behind [the state’s indemnification statute]. Wisconsin courts have determined that the purpose of the statutory indemnification is to enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of having to pay out of pocket for such performance. Indemnification here would not further this purpose. We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But [the law] does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs.

Critics of Barrett’s have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion:

Two on-duty police officers — one in Fort Wayne and one in Evansville — sexually assaulted women, who then brought civil actions against the officers’ city employers. We address two theories of employer liability: (1) the scope-of-employment rule, traditionally called respondeat superior, and (2) the rule’s common-carrier exception, which imposes a more stringent standard of care on certain enterprises. We hold that the cities may be liable under the scope-of-employment rule and that the exception does not apply.

Resounding in our decision today is the maxim that great power comes with great responsibility. Cities are endowed with the coercive power of the state, and they confer that power on their police officers. Those officers, in turn, wield it to carry out employment duties — duties that may include physically controlling and forcibly touching others without consent. For this reason, when an officer carrying out employment duties physically controls someone and then abuses employer-conferred power to sexually assault that person, the city does not, under respondeat superior, escape liability as a matter of law for the sexual assault.

Investing officers with considerable and intimidating powers comes with an inherent risk of abuse. When that abuse is a tortious act arising naturally or predictably from the police officer’s employment activities, it falls within the scope of employment for which the city is liable. Thus, if an on-duty police officer commits a sexual assault by misusing official authority, the sexual assault is within the scope of employment if the employment context naturally or predictably gave rise to that abuse of official authority.

Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court’s ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer:

Darryl Christensen, a former Polk County jailer, was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting five female inmates hundreds of times over a three-year period.

Two of his victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County over the assaults in federal court.

The complaint claimed the county sheriff’s department was indifferent to the risk of assault because it allowed one male officer with the ability to prevent the entrance of other jailers to supervise female inmates in areas without cameras. The county also deliberately chose not to accept state training materials regarding sexual assault in jails.

A jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, of which the county was responsible for paying $4 million. Given that Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his conduct, this figure is the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive.

But in June [2019], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling against the county, holding that it could not be held accountable for the actions of a “rogue guard” who knew that he was violating jail policy, his training and the law.

In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision — with Barrett joining the majority — the court vacated the three-judge panel’s opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter’s abuse of female inmates:

“Darryl Christensen’s long-term abuse of J.K.J. and M.J.J. more than justified the jury’s verdict against him. And the jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensen’s horrific acts but rather the county’s own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted — a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J.,” U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote for the full court’s majority.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, “the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates’ health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.’s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all,” Scudder said.

His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Michael Kanne, Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve.

U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who authored the original opinion, wrote a blistering 62-page dissent, and was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer.

“Under the majority opinion, a single subordinate employee may secretly override municipal policy and create a new policy under which that public employer is accountable. That is vicarious liability, a collapse into respondeat superior against which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned for 60 years,” Brennan said.

民主党美国总统候选人是否在选举日前不到两个星期就大规模的选民欺诈招认？几乎没有

【宣称】

2020 年 10 月，乔·拜登承认犯有选民欺诈行为。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election, the campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump claimed Democratic nominee Joe Biden had “admitted” to perpetrating electoral fraud. 

On Oct. 24, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted out a short video clip of Biden, along with the following text:

BIDEN ADMITS TO VOTER FRAUD!

Joe Biden brags about having the “most extensive VOTER FRAUD organization” in history!!

In the video, which was originally posted by @RNCResearch, the Republican Party’s opposition research division, the former vice president can be seen saying:

In the interest of providing readers with all the relevant context, a transcript of that question and Biden’s response can be found here. In brief, Biden encouraged prospective voters not to be intimidated by what he cast as efforts by Republicans and the Trump administration to suppress voting, especially by people of color. He outlined what he presented as his campaign’s efforts to ensure the integrity of the election, including a dedicated telephone helpline, backed by hundreds of attorneys offering support and advice, as well as poll-watchers who will “police and watch” the election. 

Immediately after he referred to “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” (the soundbite highlighted in the RNCResearch clip), Biden said:

“What the president is trying to do is discourage people from voting by implying that their vote won’t be counted, it can’t be counted, we’re going to challenge it and all these things.” 

“If enough people vote,” Biden added, it would “overwhelm the system” and effectively ensure that Trump’s purported efforts at voter suppression would not be successful.

It’s clear from watching the clip in its proper context that Biden was describing his campaign’s efforts to combat voter suppression and intimidation, as well as misinformation about the widespread perpetration of voter fraud. It would make no sense for a political candidate whose campaign was engaged in large-scale electoral fraud to publicly say as much, in those words, and that’s not what Biden was doing.

Providing additional context, the Biden campaign confirmed for Snopes that he used shorthand to refer to his campaign’s election protection initiative, which involves educating prospective voters, countering attempted voter suppression and intimidation, having lawyers on hand to provide advice to voters whose ballot is disputed or challenged, as well as the national hotline mentioned by Biden, and several similar, state-specific hotlines. 

In a statement sent to Snopes, the Biden campaign’s National Press Secretary TJ Ducklo wrote: 

The President of the United States has already demonstrated he’s willing to lie and manipulate our country’s democratic process to help himself politically, which is why we have assembled the most robust and sophisticated team in presidential campaign history to confront voter suppression and fight voter fraud however it may present itself. The American people will decide the outcome of this election on November 3rd through a free and fair election, as they always have.

By describing his campaign’s program to combat voter suppression and protect the integrity of the election as a “voter fraud organization,” Biden left open his remarks to possible misinterpretation, but crucially, only if that phrase was presented outside its original context, which the Trump campaign did. If the remarks are viewed in their proper context — Biden’s whole response to Pfeiffer’s question — it’s abundantly clear that Biden was not, for some unexplained reason, confessing to perpetrating electoral fraud on a historically massive scale, less than two weeks before Election Day.

基于一张照片的阴谋理论不会削减它，如果真的有数百张其他照片和视频反对它。

【宣称】

照片显示了美国总统唐纳德·特朗普进入海军一号与个人站在第一夫人梅拉尼亚·特朗普。

【结论】

假

【原文】

A rumor that U.S. first lady Melania Trump uses “body doubles” to take her place in public events has been a persistent feature of the Trump administration. Snopes has previously debunked several instances of the claim. In October 2020, the claim gained renewed attention with a Tweet by comedian and producer Zack Bornstein:

The reference to the Christmas tree (a nod to leaked remarks Melania Trump made about her disdain for her Christmas-decoration duties in the White House) suggests this specific accusation may not be a serious one, but the claim has nevertheless gone viral. The purported evidence is simply that the person pictured entering the helicopter in that photograph doesn’t really look like her:

Though her appearance at the debate, based on Facebook analytics from CrowdTangle for the term “Fake Melania,” did not inspire any suspicion at the time, one could perhaps argue that the purported imposter’s face was too concealed by sunglasses or a mask in these instances to be useful. That same AP photographer, however, also documented the moment when the first couple touched back down at the White House around 1:00 a.m. EDT on Oct. 23. Melania wore neither sunglasses nor a mask:

(Photos by Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

“But these photos are too blurry or ambiguous to be of use, either,” a persistent believer might argue. Fine. Other photographers also take pictures of presidents moving to and from the White House. For example, here’s a couple of high-resolution photographs showing Melania’s full face from that same moment taken by Tasos Katopodis for Getty Images:

(Photos by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

No widespread suspicion of a “body double” gained any traction from any of these other photographs, debate-stage appearances, or videos, despite the fact that they all necessarily involve the same person. For that reason, we rank this claim, like the other “Fake Melania” claims, as “False.”

关于候选人及其家属的有趣故事的传播通常与总统选举周期的开始同时进行.

【宣称】

【结论】

【原文】

When presidential campaign season is upon us, so naturally are rumors and gossip about candidates and their families. Thus in late April and early May 2019, Facebook users shared a meme delineating some of the more lurid details from the divorce records of Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden:

The younger Biden began dating his former sister-in-law Hallie after his brother, Beau Biden, died of brain cancer, and after separating from his wife Kathleen in 2015. Joe Biden confirmed the relationship in 2017 by telling the New York Post‘s Page Six that “We are all lucky that Hunter and Hallie found each other as they were putting their lives together again after such sadness. They have mine and Jill’s full and complete support and we are happy for them.”

The details reproduced in the above Facebook post about the divorce were originally disclosed in 2017, when the Delaware News Journal, citing court filings, reported that Hunter Biden’ ex-wife Kathleen had accused him of failing to “sufficiently provided for the family after the couple formally separated in October of 2015. In late 2016, Hunter ordered his office to cut Kathleen’s $17,000-a-month payment to $7,500.”

The news media also widely reported in 2014 that Hunter Biden had been kicked out of the Navy Reserve that year for failing a drug test. Citing “senior U.S. officials,” NBC News reported on 16 October 2014 that Biden had tested positive for cocaine.

It’s unclear whether Hunter left his wife because of his relationship with Hallie; however, the News Journal reported that divorce records described a relationship that was already generally rocky, in which accusations of infidelity flew both ways:

In response to Kathleen’s original complaint, Hunter denied that his conduct precipitated the couple’s split and maintained that he has sufficiently supported the family during his separation from his wife. Further, Hunter’s attorney has requested that Kathleen furnish all documents, including letters, cards and emails “between you and any person that you had a romantic or sexual relationship with other than your husband during the marriage.”

We reached out to the attorneys cited by the News Journal as representing Kathleen and Hunter respectively but did not receive responses by the time of publication.

On 30 April 2019, Page Six again purportedly broke news related to Biden familial drama when it reported that Hunter and Hallie had ended their relationship, citing an anonymous source. Neither Hallie nor a “source close to the family” would comment when reached by Page Six, however.

Although it’s a common trope that the news media have “ignored” certain stories because of political bias, the stories about Hunter Biden’s love life and military history have been widely covered. Aside from the purported split of Hunter and Hallie, however, some current readers may not have known about them because they are not new and thus hit the news cycle years ago.

批评一系列选民身份证限制的人提供了充分证据，证明这些法律会对美洲原住民产生不成比例的影响。

【宣称】

H.B. 1369，北达科他州选民身份证法，包括不成比例地影响美国原住民选民的限制。

【结论】

真

【原文】

In October 2018, with the November mid-term elections just weeks away, reports emerged that the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a ruling that would keep in place North Dakota laws which, according to their critics, could prevent thousands of Native Americans — who favor Democratic candidates — from casting their ballots.

On 12 October, the NDN Collective, a group that advocates on behalf of the rights of indigenous peoples, posted a widely-shared meme with the message that “The government [says] if you’re a tribal resident, you get a PO Box, not a street address. Also the government [says] you can only vote with a street address. THIS is voter suppression, North Dakota”:

As NDN indicated, these words were originally published by the social justice activist Brittany Packnett, in a tweet the previous day:

The government: if you’re a tribal resident, you get a PO Box, not a street address.

Also the government: you can only vote with a street address.

THIS is voter suppression, North Dakota. //t.co/yjvNvJQVDw

— Brittany Packnett (@MsPackyetti) October 11, 2018

On 13 October, the progressive writer Brandon Weber posted the same meme along with his own introductory message: “The U. S. ‘Supreme’ Court this week agreed to allow the elimination of voting rights for 70,000 Native Americans in North Dakota alone. This is an attack on all voters.”

“对于特朗普总统来说是一个完美的隐喻，” 批评家声称。到底发生了什么事

【宣称】

2020 年 10 月，白宫新闻秘书凯利·麦克纳尼给《60 分钟》记者莱斯利·斯塔尔一本关于美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在医疗保健方面取得的成就的大书，这本书是空白的。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In October 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine widely shared claims that a big book of “healthcare accomplishments” given to “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl at the White House had, in fact, been blank. 

Stahl was at the White House to conduct a high-profile interview with U.S. President Donald Trump on Oct. 20, 2020. The interview became controversial in its own right when Trump, accusing Stahl of “bias, hatred and rudeness,” took the highly unusual step of releasing the White House’s own footage of the interview — three days in advance of its scheduled airing on Sunday, Oct. 25. The president bristled at Stahl’s questions throughout, and terminated the interview five minutes early. 

On Oct. 20, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted out a photograph that showed her in the White House, along with Stahl, who appeared to struggle with the weight of a heavy book of what McEnany described as “just a small part of what President Trump has done for healthcare in the United States”:

在两次辩论中，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普错误地将乔·拜登的言论与希拉里·克林顿的一句话混为一谈。

【宣称】

乔·拜登在谈到 1994 年《暴力犯罪控制和执法法》时称美国黑人为 “超级捕食者”。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

In both of the televised debates during the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, President Donald Trump asserted that his opponent, former vice president Joe Biden, had referred to Black Americans as “superpredators.” In the first debate on Sept. 29, for example, Trump declared: “You did a crime bill, 1994, where you call them super predators. African-Americans are super predators and they’ve never forgotten it. They’ve never forgotten it.”

In the second debate, on Oct. 22, Trump stated: “Again, [Biden’s] been in government 47 years. He never did a thing except in 1994 when he did such harm to the Black community, and he called them super-predators. And he said it, ‘super-predators,’ and they have never lived that down.”

However, Trump appeared to have mistakenly conflated a remark made by Biden with one made years later by Hillary Clinton.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which, among other provisions, banned the manufacture of various “military-style assault weapons,” expanded the federal death penalty to encompass several dozen additional offenses, and provided new and stiffer penalties for violent and drug trafficking crimes committed by gang members.

特朗普竞选已经在水力压裂和化石燃料方面敲定了民主党候选人。但拜登实际上说了什么？

【宣称】

在 2020 年的总统选举中，民主党候选人乔·拜登的水力压裂政策是彻底禁止它。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

On the morning after the Oct. 8, 2020, vice presidential debate between Republican U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Snopes readers asked us to look into one of the debate’s flashpoints — the Democratic ticket’s stance on hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, a controversial method of accessing fossil fuel deposits, typically natural gas. 

In particular, readers asked Snopes whether Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was proposing a ban on fracking. At one point in the Oct. 8 debate, which took place at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Pence told Harris:

“I know Joe Biden says otherwise now, as you do, but the both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and banning of fracking.”

A week earlier, the reelection campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump published an ad that claimed Biden “will end fracking” and contained a brief clip of Biden saying “no more — no new fracking.”

阴谋往往是在旁观者的眼中。

【宣称】

2020 年民主党总统候选人乔·拜登的三条红色条纹是对中国社会主义政策的点头。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In October 2020, messages started to circulate on social media claiming that the three red stripes on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s logo were a reference to the so-called “three red banners” that outlined the socialist policies of Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China in the 1950s:

This is a genuine image of one of the logos the Biden-Harris ticket has used in their campaign as well as a genuine screenshot (to the right) from a Wikipedia page about the three red banners. However, the logic used to connect these two dots — Mao described a portion of his socialist policies as “three red banners,” therefore, items with three red stripes are about socialism — does not hold up under the lightest scrutiny.

For starters, “three red banners” is a reference to an ideological philosophy, not a specific visual design. In other words, China did not have a physical flag representing the three red banners in a similar fashion displayed on Biden’s logo. This claim is attempting to connect a textual description of a 1950s policy with a visual representation of the letter “E” in the campaign logo. 

当你不存在的时候，很难做一个令人感动的演讲。

【宣称】

罗布·唐纳森参议员发表演讲反对艾米·科尼·巴雷特的提名美国最高法院。

【结论】

误导

【原文】

In October 2020, a lengthy piece of text started to circulate on social media that supposedly originated with a speech Sen. Rob Donaldson delivered to fellow members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee during its hearing on judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The full Facebook post appears at the bottom of this article. Here are the first two paragraphs of this viral piece of text:

Speech from Senator Rob Donaldson in the Judiciary Committee hearing with Judge Barrett:

Mr. Chairman, I will ask no questions because there’s no point in doing so. We all know this is a pro forma charade with the outcome already locked up. I will simply take a few moments to address Judge Barrett directly.

Judge Barrett, I feel genuinely sorry for you. You have strong credentials and merits. However, you are here not because of them. You are here only because you are a token, a pawn. Throughout the rest of the history of this country, your name will have an asterisk by it, denoting that your place on the Supreme Court is illegitimate, the result of hypocritical, amoral conniving to turn the Court into a far-right political rubber stamp by two-faced mandarins of a Republican Party destined to go down in flames, consumed by its own internal rot and the fire of its own hubris and ethical decrepitude.

This is not the text of a speech delivered by a Sen. Rob Donaldson opposing the nomination of Barrett to the Supreme Court. How do we know? Because Sen. Rob Donaldson does not exist. 

Donaldson’s name is not listed among the members on the Judiciary Committee, nor does this name appear in the official list of current U.S. senators. 

This message was originally penned by a Facebook user named Rob Donaldson, but this person is not a sitting U.S. senator. This message, which was originally shared privately with their friends on Oct. 16, is an imaginary speech Donaldson envisioned delivering if he were a senator. When Donaldson’s friends urged him to make it public, this detail was lost, and this post was shared as if it came from an actual speech delivered by a sitting senator. 

Here’s the full version of the speech that Rob “Not An Actual U.S. Senator” Donaldson would have delivered if he had the opportunity during Barrett’s confirmation hearing: