claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado. | Contradiction | In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | [
"00075-proof-02-GettyImages-959534426.jpg"
] |
A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado. | Contradiction | In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | [
"00075-proof-02-GettyImages-959534426.jpg"
] |
A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado. | Contradiction | In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | [
"00075-proof-02-GettyImages-959534426.jpg"
] |
A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado. | Contradiction | In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response. | [
"00075-proof-02-GettyImages-959534426.jpg"
] |
On hot summer days, you should avoid filling your car's gas tank completely due to a risk of explosion. | Contradiction | Since at least as far back as 2011, the Internet has been plagued by a viral warning about a danger to car owners, who supposedly create a significant risk of explosion by filling their vehicles' gas tanks to capacity during hot weather: This premise sounds terrifying, but thankfully it makes zero scientific sense. This claim is complete hogwash for two clear and incontrovertible reasons. The first is that the temperature at which fuel auto-ignites (i.e. the temperature at which fuel will combust without a trigger or spark) is around 495ºF. This level is far higher than any temperature a covered, insulated tank could possibly achieve simply by being driven or parked on planet Earth. The second reason concerns the implication that pressure will dangerously build up in car's gas tank during hot weather, leading to higher temperatures within the tank and, somehow, an eventual spontaneous explosion. However, modern fuel tanks must have the ability to vent pressure. Since 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required that all internal combustion engine cars include evaporative emission control (or EVAP) systems. This mechanism collects excess fuel vented from a tank (to maintain even pressure) and, when conditions are correct, returns it to the tank. Prior to the adoption of these regulations, many gas tanks simply relied upon vented gas caps, leading to the occasional release of liquid gas onto the ground or the emission of volatile chemicals into the atmosphere. A significant build-up of pressure would still not occur in such older vehicles, however. When this rumor hit the Middle East in 2015, the local press were quick to debunk it: The new rumour last week was about the dangers of filling car tanks to the maximum capacity in summer months circulated widely on social media. As usual the rumour-monger[ing] attributed the information to an official body - Adnoc Distribution. The rumour mill on social media suggested that fully filled car tanks could cause fires or explosions in summer. Adnoc Distribution confirmed that it has not issued any warnings against filling car tanks to maximum capacity. Khalid Hadi, Vice-President, Marketing and Corporate Communications at Adnoc Distribution, said: 'We would like to point out that filling fuel tanks to full capacity does not imply any risks as all car fuel tanks are designed to withstand pressure build-up in high temperatures.' 'Furthermore, Adnoc Distribution has not registered any such previous incident [of cars exploding]. The rumour attributed to us is based on unknown sources, and is therefore completely false,' Hadi said. The 2018 version of this rumor (reproduced in a graphic at the head of this page) attributes the warning to Pakistan State Oil (PSO), who similarly took to social media to disclaim it: The bottom line: Because the temperature required to spark a spontaneous fire in a gas tank is unreasonably high, and because gas tanks by their nature vent excess pressure, we rank this claim as false. | in summer months circulated widely on social media. As usual the rumour-monger[ing] attributed the information to an official body - Adnoc Distribution. The rumour mill on social media suggested that fully filled car tanks could cause fires or explosions in summer. Adnoc Distribution confirmed that it has not issued any warnings against filling car tanks to maximum capacity. Khalid Hadi, Vice-President, Marketing and Corporate Communications at Adnoc Distribution, said: 'We would like to point out that filling fuel tanks to full capacity does not imply any risks as all car fuel tanks are designed to withstand pressure build-up in high temperatures.' 'Furthermore, Adnoc Distribution has not registered any such previous incident [of cars exploding]. The rumour attributed to us is based on unknown sources, and is therefore completely false,' Hadi said. The 2018 version of this rumor (reproduced in a graphic at the head of this page) attributes the warning to Pakistan State Oil (PSO), who similarly took to social media to disclaim it: The bottom line: Because the temperature required to spark a spontaneous fire in a gas tank is unreasonably high, and because gas tanks by their nature vent excess pressure, we rank this claim as false. | [
"00134-proof-05-pumping_gas_heat.jpg",
"00134-proof-08-fullgas.jpg"
] |
Facebook users are entitled to $17,500 each as compensation over a 'data breach' involving Cambridge Analytica. | Contradiction | An April 2018 article based on a controversy involving Cambridge Analytica's collection of Facebook user data asserted that social media users could receive $17,500 each in compensation over the 'data breach' (which Facebook asserted was not a data breach but rather an unauthorized acquisition of user data by a third party). That original article was soon available only via archived and aggregated versions. It wasn't clear why the original article (published to a little-known web site) had been removed, but even that original walked its headline claim back a few lines into its text: All Facebook Users Could Cash in as much $17,500 Each After Data Breach If your data was harvested through Facebook you could get £12,500 compensation, according to an expert. The social network has come under fire after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica kept users' data. This could cost Facebook £625 billion, which is double the £317b it is worth, law professor Maureen Mapp argued. 'There are about 50 million users whose data was harvested,' she told the Sun. 'Assuming each one of them brought a claim for compensation for distress caused by the data breach ... each individual may be awarded £12,500 as damages ... But a more likely outcome is that users would receive a maximum of £500 each, according to data protection lawyer David Barda, who works for Slater and Gordon. He added: 'The amount of compensation will depend on the level of distress suffered, but Facebook could be facing claims of up to £500 per Facebook user if those users were able to demonstrate their distress.' The article appeared to have been sourced from an 2018 article published by the UK tabloid The Sun. But that highly speculative Sun article pertained solely to users in the UK who might be entitled to damages under a law (Data Protection Act 1998) specific to the UK and not applicable in the United States or elsewhere: In order to get the cash users would have to prove they had suffered distress as a result of the data breach and it would fall under the Data Protection Act. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has apologised for the way user data was handled. Cambridge Analytica is currently being investigated UK Information Commissioner's Office. In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment. | In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment. | [
"00141-proof-02-facebook_money_feature.jpg"
] |
Facebook users are entitled to $17,500 each as compensation over a 'data breach' involving Cambridge Analytica. | Contradiction | An April 2018 article based on a controversy involving Cambridge Analytica's collection of Facebook user data asserted that social media users could receive $17,500 each in compensation over the 'data breach' (which Facebook asserted was not a data breach but rather an unauthorized acquisition of user data by a third party). That original article was soon available only via archived and aggregated versions. It wasn't clear why the original article (published to a little-known web site) had been removed, but even that original walked its headline claim back a few lines into its text: All Facebook Users Could Cash in as much $17,500 Each After Data Breach If your data was harvested through Facebook you could get £12,500 compensation, according to an expert. The social network has come under fire after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica kept users' data. This could cost Facebook £625 billion, which is double the £317b it is worth, law professor Maureen Mapp argued. 'There are about 50 million users whose data was harvested,' she told the Sun. 'Assuming each one of them brought a claim for compensation for distress caused by the data breach ... each individual may be awarded £12,500 as damages ... But a more likely outcome is that users would receive a maximum of £500 each, according to data protection lawyer David Barda, who works for Slater and Gordon. He added: 'The amount of compensation will depend on the level of distress suffered, but Facebook could be facing claims of up to £500 per Facebook user if those users were able to demonstrate their distress.' The article appeared to have been sourced from an 2018 article published by the UK tabloid The Sun. But that highly speculative Sun article pertained solely to users in the UK who might be entitled to damages under a law (Data Protection Act 1998) specific to the UK and not applicable in the United States or elsewhere: In order to get the cash users would have to prove they had suffered distress as a result of the data breach and it would fall under the Data Protection Act. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has apologised for the way user data was handled. Cambridge Analytica is currently being investigated UK Information Commissioner's Office. In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment. | In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment. | [
"00141-proof-02-facebook_money_feature.jpg"
] |
As of late October 2020, the U.S. had reached its peak total of COVID-19 cases and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In the final days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated his months-long campaign strategy to downplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. At rallies and on Twitter, Trump repeated claims that alleged a nefarious scheme on behalf of news reporters to undermine his reelection campaign by highlighting COVID-19 statistics - when, in Trump's reality, he wanted Americans to believe the country was 'rounding the turn' on the deadly outbreak. By pointing to alleged successes, ranging from the country's mortality rate to its testing levels, Trump sought to convince Americans his administration was making positive strides in curbing the virus' spread, and that the worse of the outbreak was over. With that messaging, he attempted to frame his Democratic rival Joe Biden as the candidate who would instead ruin the economy with strict lockdowns to curb the spread. On Oct. 30, Trump tweeted: 'Biden would lock us down forever. We are rounding the corner!' Below, we determined the legitimacy of Trump's framing of the COVID-19 outbreak in the run-up before Election Day. We considered key metrics to which scientists point for measuring the outbreak's status: the rolling average in the increase in new cases and deaths each day, and mortality rates. We based our analysis on COVID-19 patient information compiled by multiple sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The COVID Tracking Project, to which local governments and health care systems refer, as of Oct. 30. Claim: 'We Have the Lowest Mortality Rate in the World' First, let let us define what a wave means during outbreaks of infectious diseases. When a fatal epidemic starts, a rising number of people fall ill and die, and that number grows until some sort of change occurs. For example, as researchers deepen their understanding of a new disease, they can tell communities how to better protect themselves from illness - and those messages could stop rising case numbers and fatalities. Or, a disease may become less transmissible over time, people may grow immune, or scientists may discover new treatments. If or when that type of change happens, the community would have tallied its all-time high record number of patients and deaths, and see a steady decrease in such measurements from then on. But over the course of an infectious disease outbreak, that pattern - a rise in cases and deaths, a peak, and then a decline - often repeats. For example, the largest 19th-century epidemic of influenza, an outbreak that occurred between 1889 and 1892, consisted of three such waves, all of which varied in intensity. Let's circle back to COVID-19, which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The president alleged on multiple occasions, including at the final of two presidential debates with Biden on Oct. 22, that the country's 'excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country,' without further explanation. But in reality, epidemiologists are still developing definitive estimates for the country's rate of excess mortalities - or the number of COVID-19 patients who died, in part, due to the virus exacerbating pre-existing health problems. 'Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed,' according to the CDC. Rather, to measure the pandemic's deadliness, scientists often referred to what's called the 'observed case fatality ratio,' or the percentage of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying within the sum of all positive cases. As of this writing, that proportion was 2.6% in America - the seventh-highest rate among hardest-hit countries globally, per Johns Hopkins data. Czechia held the top spot, followed by India and Poland. Additionally, to determine a country's ability to contain the virus, researchers considered the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, healthy or not. In the days before the election, almost 70 people for every 100,000 in the U.S. were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying - a rate that was the fifth worst death globally, according to Johns Hopkins data. Comparatively, Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus, with roughly five deaths per every 100,000 people. All of this said, an October study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association compared America's death rates - including preliminary estimates of excess mortalities in the U.S. - with that of 18 countries with similar economies and confirmed the findings of the Johns Hopkins data: the U.S. had one of the highest rates of deaths per 100,000 people. The researchers determined: Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19-associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020. After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. In other words, it was outright false to claim the country had the lowest case-fatality ratio globally, or the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 people, and the CDC was still analyzing that data to form definitive estimates for the country's excess mortalities. Claim: Fewer COVID-19 Patients Were Dying There is some truth within the president's framing of the pandemic's death toll shortly before the election: The survival rate among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the U.S. appeared to be improving. During mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of deaths per day hovered below 860, which was well below the peak of more than 2,100 in the spring, according to the tracking project. As you can see in the graph below, that statistic was on a downward slope since that high point with slight ebbs and flows, though it never fell below about 480 daily mortalities. No evidence showed the virus was becoming less fatal over time, but rather that the medical community had improved treatments for severely ill patients, and that more younger people with lower health risks comprised that group. Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of NYU Langone's Center for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science, told The New York Times for an Oct. 29 story on the dropping death rate: We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they don't, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications. Nonetheless, epidemiologists were preparing in the weeks before the presidential election for the raw number of deaths to increase as the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven) increased - a trend we unpack below. According to CDC models, between 3,900 to 10,000 people could die during the third week of November alone, raising the country's COVID-19 death toll to at least 243,000 people. Claim: COVID-19 Cases Were Increasing Because of More Testing Facing a crowd of supporters in Michigan on Oct. 27, Trump repeated what he believes is the reason for America's high number of COVID-19 cases compared to other counties. 'You know why we have so many cases? Because we test more,' he said. Not quite. Directly equating the increase in cases to the increase in testing (or upward slopes in graphs depicting COVID-19 data) was a flawed argument that, in effect, removed the role of individual responsibility to make lifestyle changes to prevent the spread of the virus. Without question, increased testing would reveal more positive cases - that's the nature of probability, and partly the reason for the country's all-time high positivity rate in the spring (seen in the graph below). However, in order for increased testing to be the sole reason for more positive COVID-19 tests among Americans, the proportion of positive tests (within the sum of tests) would have to decrease, or remain steady, over time. And looking nationally, this measurement, called the 'positivity rate,' was on a slight upward climb in the final weeks before the 2020 election, according to Johns Hopkins data. Over the course of several weeks before the election, the country's moving average rate of positive tests increased from 4.2% to 6.3%. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), an area's positivity rate should remain at 5% or lower for at least two weeks before its leaders lift rules on social distancing. As of this writing, just 17 states met that threshold. 'The data speak for themselves,' said Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, in an interview with BBC, where he described some states' high positivity rate as an indication the country was going in the wrong direction. Claim: 'We Have Great Numbers' After all, the Trump administration listed 'ending the COVID-19 pandemic' as one of the president's top accomplishments in a campaign flyer on Oct. 27, according to a copy obtained by Politico and displayed below. A spokesperson for the White House later told Fox News the statement was 'poorly worded' and meant to emphasize the administration's goal to overcome the pandemic. Alleging success was undoubtedly a key reelection strategy for Trump. The day after the Michigan rally, for example, Trump went to Bullhead City, Arizona, where he said: 'We have great numbers, we have some incredible numbers,' in reference to the COVID-19 outbreak. While he did not explain to what statistics, exactly, he was referring, nor highlight any specific evidence to support his claim, his supporters interpreted the comment to mean the pandemic was less of a problem in the fall than during the spring and summer months. For the purpose of this report, we considered 'great numbers' to mean the U.S. had hit its peak case total and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then - or that the country was completing a wave. With that background in mind, consider the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases and deaths (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven), which researchers consider one of the most reliable indicators of the country's pandemic status. As you can see in the graph below, which was a compilation of data by Johns Hopkins, the rolling average had steadily increased since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, with two slight dips in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus. | in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus. | [] |
As of late October 2020, the U.S. had reached its peak total of COVID-19 cases and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In the final days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated his months-long campaign strategy to downplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. At rallies and on Twitter, Trump repeated claims that alleged a nefarious scheme on behalf of news reporters to undermine his reelection campaign by highlighting COVID-19 statistics - when, in Trump's reality, he wanted Americans to believe the country was 'rounding the turn' on the deadly outbreak. By pointing to alleged successes, ranging from the country's mortality rate to its testing levels, Trump sought to convince Americans his administration was making positive strides in curbing the virus' spread, and that the worse of the outbreak was over. With that messaging, he attempted to frame his Democratic rival Joe Biden as the candidate who would instead ruin the economy with strict lockdowns to curb the spread. On Oct. 30, Trump tweeted: 'Biden would lock us down forever. We are rounding the corner!' Below, we determined the legitimacy of Trump's framing of the COVID-19 outbreak in the run-up before Election Day. We considered key metrics to which scientists point for measuring the outbreak's status: the rolling average in the increase in new cases and deaths each day, and mortality rates. We based our analysis on COVID-19 patient information compiled by multiple sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The COVID Tracking Project, to which local governments and health care systems refer, as of Oct. 30. Claim: 'We Have the Lowest Mortality Rate in the World' First, let let us define what a wave means during outbreaks of infectious diseases. When a fatal epidemic starts, a rising number of people fall ill and die, and that number grows until some sort of change occurs. For example, as researchers deepen their understanding of a new disease, they can tell communities how to better protect themselves from illness - and those messages could stop rising case numbers and fatalities. Or, a disease may become less transmissible over time, people may grow immune, or scientists may discover new treatments. If or when that type of change happens, the community would have tallied its all-time high record number of patients and deaths, and see a steady decrease in such measurements from then on. But over the course of an infectious disease outbreak, that pattern - a rise in cases and deaths, a peak, and then a decline - often repeats. For example, the largest 19th-century epidemic of influenza, an outbreak that occurred between 1889 and 1892, consisted of three such waves, all of which varied in intensity. Let's circle back to COVID-19, which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The president alleged on multiple occasions, including at the final of two presidential debates with Biden on Oct. 22, that the country's 'excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country,' without further explanation. But in reality, epidemiologists are still developing definitive estimates for the country's rate of excess mortalities - or the number of COVID-19 patients who died, in part, due to the virus exacerbating pre-existing health problems. 'Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed,' according to the CDC. Rather, to measure the pandemic's deadliness, scientists often referred to what's called the 'observed case fatality ratio,' or the percentage of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying within the sum of all positive cases. As of this writing, that proportion was 2.6% in America - the seventh-highest rate among hardest-hit countries globally, per Johns Hopkins data. Czechia held the top spot, followed by India and Poland. Additionally, to determine a country's ability to contain the virus, researchers considered the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, healthy or not. In the days before the election, almost 70 people for every 100,000 in the U.S. were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying - a rate that was the fifth worst death globally, according to Johns Hopkins data. Comparatively, Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus, with roughly five deaths per every 100,000 people. All of this said, an October study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association compared America's death rates - including preliminary estimates of excess mortalities in the U.S. - with that of 18 countries with similar economies and confirmed the findings of the Johns Hopkins data: the U.S. had one of the highest rates of deaths per 100,000 people. The researchers determined: Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19-associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020. After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. In other words, it was outright false to claim the country had the lowest case-fatality ratio globally, or the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 people, and the CDC was still analyzing that data to form definitive estimates for the country's excess mortalities. Claim: Fewer COVID-19 Patients Were Dying There is some truth within the president's framing of the pandemic's death toll shortly before the election: The survival rate among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the U.S. appeared to be improving. During mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of deaths per day hovered below 860, which was well below the peak of more than 2,100 in the spring, according to the tracking project. As you can see in the graph below, that statistic was on a downward slope since that high point with slight ebbs and flows, though it never fell below about 480 daily mortalities. No evidence showed the virus was becoming less fatal over time, but rather that the medical community had improved treatments for severely ill patients, and that more younger people with lower health risks comprised that group. Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of NYU Langone's Center for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science, told The New York Times for an Oct. 29 story on the dropping death rate: We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they don't, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications. Nonetheless, epidemiologists were preparing in the weeks before the presidential election for the raw number of deaths to increase as the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven) increased - a trend we unpack below. According to CDC models, between 3,900 to 10,000 people could die during the third week of November alone, raising the country's COVID-19 death toll to at least 243,000 people. Claim: COVID-19 Cases Were Increasing Because of More Testing Facing a crowd of supporters in Michigan on Oct. 27, Trump repeated what he believes is the reason for America's high number of COVID-19 cases compared to other counties. 'You know why we have so many cases? Because we test more,' he said. Not quite. Directly equating the increase in cases to the increase in testing (or upward slopes in graphs depicting COVID-19 data) was a flawed argument that, in effect, removed the role of individual responsibility to make lifestyle changes to prevent the spread of the virus. Without question, increased testing would reveal more positive cases - that's the nature of probability, and partly the reason for the country's all-time high positivity rate in the spring (seen in the graph below). However, in order for increased testing to be the sole reason for more positive COVID-19 tests among Americans, the proportion of positive tests (within the sum of tests) would have to decrease, or remain steady, over time. And looking nationally, this measurement, called the 'positivity rate,' was on a slight upward climb in the final weeks before the 2020 election, according to Johns Hopkins data. Over the course of several weeks before the election, the country's moving average rate of positive tests increased from 4.2% to 6.3%. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), an area's positivity rate should remain at 5% or lower for at least two weeks before its leaders lift rules on social distancing. As of this writing, just 17 states met that threshold. 'The data speak for themselves,' said Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, in an interview with BBC, where he described some states' high positivity rate as an indication the country was going in the wrong direction. Claim: 'We Have Great Numbers' After all, the Trump administration listed 'ending the COVID-19 pandemic' as one of the president's top accomplishments in a campaign flyer on Oct. 27, according to a copy obtained by Politico and displayed below. A spokesperson for the White House later told Fox News the statement was 'poorly worded' and meant to emphasize the administration's goal to overcome the pandemic. Alleging success was undoubtedly a key reelection strategy for Trump. The day after the Michigan rally, for example, Trump went to Bullhead City, Arizona, where he said: 'We have great numbers, we have some incredible numbers,' in reference to the COVID-19 outbreak. While he did not explain to what statistics, exactly, he was referring, nor highlight any specific evidence to support his claim, his supporters interpreted the comment to mean the pandemic was less of a problem in the fall than during the spring and summer months. For the purpose of this report, we considered 'great numbers' to mean the U.S. had hit its peak case total and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then - or that the country was completing a wave. With that background in mind, consider the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases and deaths (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven), which researchers consider one of the most reliable indicators of the country's pandemic status. As you can see in the graph below, which was a compilation of data by Johns Hopkins, the rolling average had steadily increased since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, with two slight dips in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus. | in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus. | [] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states. | Contradiction | Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | [
"00258-proof-02-GettyImages-1285531961-e1605824096373.jpg",
"00258-proof-05-ledger-path-to-victory.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states. | Contradiction | Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | [
"00258-proof-02-GettyImages-1285531961-e1605824096373.jpg",
"00258-proof-05-ledger-path-to-victory.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states. | Contradiction | Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | [
"00258-proof-02-GettyImages-1285531961-e1605824096373.jpg",
"00258-proof-05-ledger-path-to-victory.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states. | Contradiction | Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes. | [
"00258-proof-02-GettyImages-1285531961-e1605824096373.jpg",
"00258-proof-05-ledger-path-to-victory.jpg"
] |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 0