copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2023-04-17): Before and after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump and his supporters repeatedly spread baseless claims that Dominion’s election equipment was used to fraudulently tilt the vote count to President Joe Biden. [...] No flipped votes. We rated Pants on Fire! a claim that Dominion flipped votes from Trump to Biden in states where Trump was bringing legal challengers. Dominion was used in only a few counties that had minor issues, some caused by humans, that were quickly fixed, we found. [...] Not in Myanmar. Social media posts falsely claimed that Dominion voting machines were used to conduct fraud in Myanmar elections. Myanmar does not use Dominion machines.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2023-05-27): - Egreteau, R. 2016. Caretaking Democratization: The Military and Political Change in Myanmar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2024-10-05): I'm getting word the military of Burma has arrested their leaders for election fraud...and they used Dominion machines. [...] That article doesn't have a single mention of Dominion, and I couldn't find a single source Googling "Myanmar election dominion". You can't google the real conspiracies, c'mon man!That article doesn't have a single mention of Dominion, and I couldn't find a single source Googling "Myanmar election dominion".
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2021-09-01): Unrestrained khaki capitalism is the natural product of militaries that enjoy domestic political dominion and legal impunity. As long as democracy remains nullified in Myanmar or controlled and highly deficient in Thailand, their generals will never face the kind of security-sector reforms—imposed by elected, civilian-led governments—that could bring them under effective oversight and reduce their budgets.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2022-06-06): In the 2010s, Myanmar embarked on a transition away from rigid military rule. ‘Discipline-flourishing democracy’, entrenched in the 2008 Constitution, created a power-sharing arrangement in which core military interests were protected through provisions for military ministers in security domains, military participation in legislative assemblies, military veto of constitutional change and ongoing military presence in the political life of the nation. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) won the 2010 general election and President Thein Sein led a USDP administration from 2011 to 2016. The opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) won the 2015 general election, and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi effectively led an NLD administration from 2016 to 2021. Political reform advanced throughout the decade.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2021-02-02): Both claims were false. Myanmar did not use Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic, or any other machines or electronics in its election process. [...] We reached out to both Dominion and Smartmatic for comment about the possibility of any past dealings with Myanmar. A spokesperson for Dominion told us that the company has never had any voting systems in Myanmar. Smartmatic also responded: "Smartmatic had no involvement in Myanmar’s 2020 elections. In fact, Smartmatic has never provided any election technology or services to authorities in that country. Any claim to the contrary is simply false." In sum, Myanmar did not use Dominion Voting Systems or Smartmatic for its 2020 general election. Votes were cast and counted by hand.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2021-02-05): The army's move has been condemned inside and outside Myanmar, also known as Burma, but do its claims about voter fraud stand up to scrutiny? [...] Indelible ink is used in many elections around the world, and in Myanmar was provided by the United Nations and Japan. [...] It's not the first time there have been issues over voter lists in Myanmar.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2020-10-05): (Bangkok) – Myanmar’s electoral process is undermined by systemic problems and rights abuses that will deprive people of their right to fairly elect their government, Human Rights Watch said today. Parliamentary, state, and local elections are scheduled for November 8, 2020. [...] The Myanmar government is using the discriminatory 1982 Citizenship Law and the Election Law to disenfranchise Rohingya and prevent them from running for office, even though most Rohingya families have lived in Myanmar for generations, Human Rights Watch said. Many Rohingya were hopeful that after the 2015 elections, NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi would change these laws and policies. Instead, the NLD has supported the military as it carried out ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and possible genocide against the Rohingya in Rakhine State. [...] The Union Election Commission’s mVoter2020 app, developed with the support of international election organizations, includes unnecessary and inflammatory race and religion information about candidates and their parents. A candidate in Rakhine State, Dus Muhammed, also known as Aye Win, of the Democracy and Human Rights Party, is listed as "Bengali-Bamar." Bengali is a racist term that Burmese nationalists widely use for the Rohingya.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2021-06-03): Dominion Voting Systems has sued Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell for making false accusations of election fraud that defamed the company after the 2020 election. Both of those lawsuits are ongoing, but a false claim circulating on social media says that "Dominion LOST their law suits." [...] Posts Falsely Tie Myanmar Election to Dominion Voting Systems Social media posts falsely claim that the November election in Myanmar was conducted using Dominion Voting Systems, the company that was the focus of bogus theories about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The company said its systems aren’t used in Myanmar, and there’s no indication that the country uses any voting machines.
Claim: “Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.” (Facebook posts, 2021-02-01)
Evidence (2022-11-21): - 71In the days before the coup, the Tatmadaw declared that more than eight million cases of potential voting fraud had been uncovered relating to the November election (Jack Goodman, "Myanmar Coup: Does the Army Have Evidence of Voter Fraud?," BBC, February 5, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/55918746). Perhaps inspired by the events in the United States, there were also claims on social media that Myanmar had used Dominion Voting Systems in the general election (Reuters, "Fact Check: Myanmar Did Not Use Dominion Voting Systems in General Election," Reuters, February 2, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-dominion-myanmar-idUSKBN2A22ZO). There is no proof for the first claim. The second one is simply wrong.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-10): There’s no clause in the Constitution that would prevent President Donald Trump from making a Supreme Court nomination close to Election Day or block Senate Republicans from moving to confirm that nominee, legal experts said. Senate Republicans are moving to fill the Supreme Court vacancy after blocking the nomination President Barack Obama made during the last presidential election year. Some experts said the move seems at odds with some democratic principles underlying the Constitution, such as the idea that there should be consent of the governed.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court [...] The Senate has voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court, solidifying the court’s conservative majority. [...] Senate Republicans are poised to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett today, a major victory for the President and his party just days before Nov. 3, that promises to push the high court in a more conservative direction for generations to come.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): By — Associated Press Associated Press Leave a comment 0comments Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-senate-debates-supreme-court-confirmation-of-amy-coney-barrett Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter WATCH: U.S. Senate set to confirm Barrett to Supreme Court Politics Updated on Oct 26, 2020 6:30 PM EDT — Published on Oct 26, 2020 10:30 AM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — Overpowering Democratic opposition, Senate Republicans are set to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, securing President Donald Trump’s nominee a week before Election Day and a likely conservative court majority for years to come. Watch the Senate debate Barrett’s confirmation in the video player above. Trump’s choice to fill the vacancy of the late liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg potentially opens a new era of rulings on abortion, the Affordable Care Act and even a potential dispute over his own election. Democrats are unable to stop Monday’s outcome, Trump’s third justice to the court, as Republicans race to reshape the judiciary. Barrett is 48, and her confirmation will solidify the court’s rightward tilt. Monday’s vote is the closest high court confirmation ever to a presidential election, and the first in modern times with no support from the minority party.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): The Senate voted 52-48 on Monday night to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in a move that makes the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and Notre Dame law professor the third appointment to the high court by President Trump, solidifying his administration's legacy even further just a week before Election Day as he seeks a second term. [...] Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote against Barrett after expressing objections to moving a Supreme Court nomination before an election after Republicans blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland ahead of the 2016 election. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has also expressed the same concerns as Collins and voted against a procedural motion to advance Barrett's nomination on Sunday, but she voted for the nominee Monday after saying she would not hold her process objections against Barrett. [...] CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "I consider Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee that I've encountered in my 34 years in the United States Senate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Monday.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): Following the Senate's confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the White House hosted a ceremony where Justice Clarence Thomas administered the official constitutional oath to Barrett. [...] As Barrett gets ready to join the court just one week before the election -- and Democrats fear she’ll intervene in any disputes arising from the vote -- Barrett added, "A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her." [...] That move left Collins alone among the GOP opposition who voted against Barrett on Monday. Collins is in an extremely difficult fight for reelection in a moderate state where she has been lambasted for her past support of conservative jurists, including Trump's highly contentious nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): Senate Republicans voted Monday night to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, tilting the balance of the court to a 6-3 conservative majority for years to come and handing President Donald Trump a victory barely a week before the election. Every Republican but one, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, voted to confirm Barrett. Every Democrat voted no. The final tally was 52 to 48. [...] Democrats protested the rushed process, calling it a "sham" and boycotting Barrett’s vote out of the Judiciary Committee. They criticized Republicans for the hypocrisy of filling a Supreme Court seat in a presidential election year after they denied President Barack Obama the ability to do so. They warned that Barrett is a threat to the Affordable Care Act and highlighted her record of hostility to the health care law, women’s reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. But they never had the votes to stop her confirmation.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): Murkowski Votes to Confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) today voted to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The nomination was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. On Saturday, prior to the vote, Senator Murkowski spoke on the Senate floor to explain her opposition to the process, but turning to the decision of whether Judge Amy Coney Barrett is qualified to serve on the highest court in the land, announced she would vote in favor of the nominee. "My constitutional responsibility is to now look beyond process and to vote based on a solid evaluation of her qualifications and fitness of judicial temperament," said Senator Murkowski. "I have reviewed Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing and her writings. I also had a lengthy discussion with her this week to delve further into her record and views of jurisprudence. It is clear that she is qualified by any objective standard and has received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association. She has demonstrated a strong command of the law, intellect, discipline, and, ultimately, the capability to hold the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-20): The nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court reignited claims of unfair behavior by Senate Republicans who refused to confirm Judge Merrick Garland to the nation's highest bench four years ago. Garland was then-President Barack Obama's nominee; Barrett is President Donald Trump's. [...] More: Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court hearings conclude, paving way for confirmation days before election [...] We rate this claim PARTLY FALSE, based on our research. It is true that Senate Republicans, led by McConnell blocked the confirmation process for Obama's Supreme Court nominee but held a hearing for Trump's pick. But claims of racism are unsubstantiated. In 2019, McConnell said he would fill a Supreme Court nominee during an election year. And Trump tapped Barrett for the Supreme Court as a possible tie-breaker vote in the event of a dispute over the results of the presidential election next month. Nonetheless, the timing is a bit off in the claim. There were 123 days between the date of the post and inauguration day on Jan. 20, 2021. Trump still has a little over 100 days in office, but the claim correctly states Obama had about10 months left in his term when he announced Merrick Garland as his Supreme Court nominee.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): The Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, just days before Election Day, solidifying the conservative majority on the court as it is set to consider several high-profile cases in the coming months. She was sworn in shortly thereafter by Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House. [...] "Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a reminder to millions of Americans why they voted for President Trump in the first place. She is now the third solid, conservative Justice appointed to the Supreme Court by the President and she will apply the Constitution and not turn the Court into a super legislature," Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis said. "Her nomination and confirmation exposed the radical leftist plan to pack the Court by expanding its size, and also put Joe Biden on the spot. He must now come clean with the American people, reveal his list of prospective justices, explain his position on court packing, and stop telling voters that they 'don't deserve' to know what he thinks." [...] Republicans have praised Barrett's qualifications and her judicial record, but Democrats have slammed Republicans for pushing Barrett's confirmation so close to Election Day after Republicans blocked Merrick Garland's nomination to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's vacant seat in 2016. Republicans argued at the time that a Supreme Court nomination should not be considered in an election year, that voters should be able to weigh in by choosing their president. The newly elected president, they said, should select the justice.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): A bitterly divided Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett as the 115th justice to the Supreme Court on Monday, elevating just the fifth woman to the court in its 231-year history and one who further cements its conservative shift — a legacy that will last even if Republicans lose power in next week’s elections. [...] The battle to confirm Barrett — whose installation occurred as more than 60 million people had already cast their ballots for president — also plunged a Senate already bruised by years of tit-for-tat skirmishes in the judicial wars into deeper partisan acrimony. Incensed Democrats charged Republicans with hypocrisy for blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for eight months in 2016 and repeatedly pointed out that no justice has been confirmed this close to a presidential election. [...] McConnell marshaled support from all but two of his Republican senators to proceed with Barrett before the Nov. 3 election. The duo opposed to doing so were Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), although Murkowski supported Barrett in the final confirmation vote on the merits. And Collins stressed that her "no" vote was meant to register her disagreement with confirming her amid a presidential campaign, not any conclusion about Barrett’s qualifications.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-10): Asked whether he would consider adding justices to the Supreme Court if elected, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden claimed Senate Republicans’ move to install Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the vacant seat less than a month before Election Day was "not constitutional." [...] As for the move to seat Barrett before the election, two constitutional scholars said that in a general sense, the Senate Republicans’ actions seem at odds with some of the democratic principles underlying the Constitution. [...] Newsweek, "Joe Biden Says Amy Coney Barrett Appointment 'Not Constitutional' as He Evades Court Packing Question Again," Oct. 10, 2020
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): "We've made an important contribution to the future of this country," said a beaming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after winning a key procedural test vote that moved (Judge Amy Coney) Barrett closer to confirmation to the Supreme Court, a key goal of President Donald Trump who has voiced concern that the outcome of the hard-fought election might be settled by the high court. [...] That move left one Republican -- Sen. Susan Collins of Maine -- alone among the GOP opposition expected to vote against Barrett on Monday. Collins is in an extremely difficult fight for reelection in a moderate state where she has been lambasted for her past support of conservative jurists, including Trump's highly contentious nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. [...] "Notwithstanding all the bluster you just heard because of a long, systematic strategy by the Democratic leader to block judges put forward by Republican presidents," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., shot back, "Tomorrow we are going to get to vote to confirm one of the most outstanding judicial nominees that I've had the pleasure of considering during my time in the Senate. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is eminently qualified ... first in her class at Notre Dame Law School, Supreme Court clerk, beloved Notre Dame law professor, outstanding scholar, circuit court judge."
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to US Supreme Court - Published The US Senate has confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in a victory for President Donald Trump a week before the presidential election. [...] Democrats have threatened to retaliate for Judge Barrett's appointment by court-packing - which would entail expanding the number of justices on the nine-seat Supreme Court - if they win the White House and control of the Senate next week.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court Monday along a near party-line vote, cementing a strong conservative majority on the nation’s highest court just over one week before Election Day. With a 52 to 48 vote, Republicans put Barrett on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment without the support of a single Democrat. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote against Barrett. The speed of the confirmation process, the stakes for the balance of power on the Supreme Court and the proximity to Election Day are expected to motivate voters on both sides of the aisle to express their support or dismay over the outcome at the ballot box. [...] In 2016, the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death may have been decisive in convincing conservative voters to support Donald Trump. National exit polls showed that 21% of voters said the Supreme Court appointment was "the most important factor" in their decision, and those voters favored Trump over his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Supreme Court nominations unite the Republican Party," says Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, a group that fights to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees. Now, as Trump trails former Vice President Joe Biden in national polls, "Judge Barrett’s nomination is helping President Trump climb out of the hole and it will put him in a place where he can stun the world again with an upset victory," Davis says.