Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Ex Input:
This is a sentence spoken by Trump, not a piece of modernist stream-of-consciousness pastiche. pic.twitter.com/vfhdKzg9Uy — Stig Abell (@StigAbell) August 9, 2016  On 19 July 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appeared at Sun City’s Magnolia Hall in South Carolina to deliver a noontime speech. The event was an otherwise unremarkable campaign stop, save for one portion of Trump’s speech (transcribed below) in which he apparently started out attempting to criticize the nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran but veered into a minute-and-a-half long sentence that spanned his uncle’s academic qualifications, his own education, Democrats’ denying Republicans’ credentials, the power of nuclear technology, the number of American prisoners freed by Iran in conjunction with the nuclear deal, and the adeptness of “Persian” negotiators (particularly women), before circling back to how the Iranians “killed us” in the nuclear deal:   “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”  The one thing that puzzles us the most about this sprawling statement is this: Donald Trump’s late uncle, Dr. John Trump, was indeed a renowned professor at MIT, and among his many notable contributions to science were developing methods for treating cancer through radiation and studying how to radiate deep tumors without harming nearby healthy tissue. But what did he reveal to his nephew about “nuclear” 35 years ago that it would have been surprising for anyone to think of?

Ex Output:
A tweet reproduces a 90-second long sentence from a Donald Trump speech.


Ex Input:
The department revealed it had contemplated using the drug in a court filing last month, which has not been previously reported. In the end, it decided against adopting the drug for executions. Attorney General William Barr announced in July his department instead would use pentobarbital, a barbiturate, when it resumes federal executions later this year, ending a de facto moratorium on the punishment put in place by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. But the special consideration given to the possibilities of fentanyl, even as federal agents were focused on seizing illegal imports of the synthetic opioid, show how much has changed since the federal government last carried out an execution nearly 20 years ago. Many pharmaceutical companies have since put tight controls on their distribution channels to stop their drugs being used in executions. As old supply chains vanished, many states, and the federal government in turn, have been forced to tinker with their lethal recipes. They have experimented with different drugs, in some cases leading to grisly “botched” executions in which the condemned prisoners have visibly suffered prolonged, excruciating deaths, viewed by some as a breach of the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual” punishments. In 2017, Nebraska and Nevada announced they would use fentanyl, which is 100 times more powerful than morphine, in new multi-drug execution protocols. By 2018, the U.S. Justice Department was also examining the “use of fentanyl as part of a lethal injection protocol,” according to a three-page internal memorandum from March 2018 by the director of the department’s Bureau of Prisons. The Justice Department revealed the memo’s existence in an August court filing after a federal judge ordered it to produce a complete “administrative record” showing how it arrived at the new pentobarbital execution protocol announced in July. The full contents of the memo are not public. It is not known why the department decided to examine fentanyl, what supply channels were considered or why it ultimately rejected fentanyl as a protocol. The government’s court filing shows the only other named drug examined as the subject of a department memo was pentobarbital, the drug it now says it wants to use in December and January to kill five of the 61 prisoners awaiting execution on federal death row. Wyn Hornbuckle, a department spokesman, declined to share a copy of the memo or to answer questions about the government’s execution protocol. Mark Inch, who was the Bureau of Prisons’ director at the time, acknowledged in a brief telephone interview writing the memo. Inch, who abruptly resigned a couple months after writing the memo, declined to answer questions, in part because he said it would be in conflict with his current role running Florida’s Department of Corrections. Doctors can prescribe fentanyl for treating severe pain. In recent years, illegal fentanyl has become a common additive in bootleg pain pills and other street drugs, contributing to the tens of thousands of opioid overdose deaths in the country each year. Even tiny quantities can slow or stop a person’s breathing. Earlier this year, an Ohio lawmaker proposed using some of the illegal fentanyl seized from drug traffickers to execute condemned inmates. Death penalty researchers say that just because a drug is deadly does not mean it is always appropriate as an execution drug. “I don’t think it’d be a surprise that the government would be looking at alternative methods of carrying out lethal injection, and fentanyl has been in the news,” Robert Dunham, the director of the Washington-based non-profit group the Death Penalty Information Center, said in an interview. “But there is just something fundamentally wrong about using a drug implicated in illegal activities as your method of executing prisoners.”   In August 2018, Carey Dean Moore became the first person in the United States to be executed using a protocol that included fentanyl. Nebraska prison officials injected him with fentanyl and three other drugs. Moore took 23 minutes to die. Witnesses said that before succumbing, Moore breathed heavily and coughed and that his face turned red, then purple.

Ex Output:
Exclusive: While battling opioid crisis, U.S. government weighed using fentanyl for executions.


Ex Input:
"The handling of a police traffic stop involving Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed’s brother raises questions about power, politics and ethics. What has the Truth-O-Meter spinning is a more practical concern: crime databases. When police stopped Tracy Reed on Oct. 28, he had an open warrant for failing to appear at a traffic court hearing three weeks earlier. Reed could have been arrested on the spot. Yet when an officer ran his name in the Atlanta Police Department’s criminal database, the warrant never popped up. A police major let Reed go. This was no fluke, according to a recent city of Atlanta news release about its internal investigation on the stop. Police may rely upon the Atlanta Criminal Information Center database to find out whether someone has a warrant, but in certain cases, it can’t tell them. ""Atlanta Municipal Court bench warrants are not included in the Atlanta Criminal Information Center [ACIC] database,"" the Nov. 28 release said. Bench warrants are arrest warrants initiated by a judge, often when people fail to appear in court. We PolitiFact Georgia scribes squinted our eyes and read the sentence twice. If these arrest warrants aren’t in the system, how do police know whom to haul to jail? We talked to Atlanta police, reviewed existing policies and statutes, contacted court officials, and looked at investigative reports to find some answers. And yes, there is a hole in the city’s criminal database. In case you missed the controversy, Reed ran into trouble Oct. 28 after an Atlanta police officer stopped him for driving with an expired tag, according to a city internal investigation. Even though Reed drove with a license suspended since 2006, the patrolman’s superior let the mayor’s brother go. Running a criminal history database is a complex operation. The information is sensitive and the stakes are high. If the people who enter the data get it wrong or don’t enter it in time, an officer might come face to face with a dangerous felon and not even know it. A person could be jailed for a crime he didn’t commit. That means police can’t do something as simple as make a phone call or send an email to put a warrant in the system, state and local law enforcement officials told us. Only specially certified employees may enter the information into the computer, and they may do so only after receiving the proper documentation. When Atlanta police obtain warrants as part of their investigations, agency policy gives investigating officers 12 hours to hand-deliver the paperwork to the APD team that updates the criminal database. But when an Atlanta municipal judge issues a warrant because someone fails to appear in court, no one hands this paperwork over for entry in the city’s database, police spokesman Carlos Campos told PolitiFact. In fact, these bench warrants are not entered into any local, state or national database, according to the city’s investigative report. Georgia law doesn’t require it, said Shirley Andrews, who helps run the state’s criminal database for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The state attorney general designates what minor offenses must be in the system. Bench warrants for failing to appear in Municipal Court are not on it. This is a problem, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner told investigators. ""[T]he truth is, there are thousands of folks that are warranted by Municipal Court warrants. But there’s no way, not to my knowledge, on how to deal with it,"" Turner said, according to a transcript of his interview. The head of a state professional organization for prosecutors said he has heard that other jurisdictions are wrestling with the issue. Officers or dispatchers could telephone the Atlanta court to check for open warrants, Turner told investigators, but it’s closed on Friday, the day Reed was stopped. Police and court officials told PolitiFact they’ve been working on this problem for months but need funding to solve it. Atlanta Municipal Court bench warrants are not included in the ACIC database, as the city’s news release said. In fact, Atlanta’s police chief estimates that thousands of people with open warrants aren’t in there. We find the city’s claim ."

Ex Output:

A database police use to look up wanted suspects excludes certain warrants issued by Atlanta Municipal Court.