There is no evidence that “unindicted co-conspirators” mentioned in federal indictments related to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack are undercover FBI agents or informants, as conservative outlets have claimed or suggested. Legal experts and federal case law say that government agents and informants cannot be labeled conspirators to a crime.
On June 8, a bipartisan group of senators released a report on the security and intelligence failures related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The report did not “single out” former President Donald Trump “for inciting … the riots,” as a Facebook post from the advocacy group Occupy Democrats could lead social media users to believe.
More than 400 people have been charged in relation to the Jan. 6 events at the U.S. Capitol, and there is ample evidence that many protesters defied and assaulted Capitol Police officers that day. Yet viral social media posts are falsely claiming a video clip proves that “Capitol Police gave protesters OK” to enter the building. The video clip does not depict that.
An audit of ballots and a forensic audit of voting equipment earlier this year found no problems in the 2020 elections in Maricopa County, Arizona. But debunked claims about voter fraud revealed by secret “watermarks” are flowing again on social media amid a Republican-led audit. County officials say no watermarks were used on the ballots.
A single copy of Vice President Kamala Harris’ children’s book was one of many titles donated to a shelter for immigrant children in Long Beach, California. But a debunked New York Post article – which led to the reporter’s resignation — incorrectly claimed every child was given a copy of her book, starting a deluge of false claims in social media posts.
In his April 28 address to Congress, President Joe Biden said, “No one should have to choose between a job and a paycheck or taking care of themselves and their loved ones — a parent, or spouse, or child.” Partisan social media accounts misleadingly edited his words in a viral video to suggest he said, “No one should have to choose between a job and a paycheck.”
An alternate juror in the trial of Derek Chauvin said she initially had “mixed feelings” about jury duty, because of concerns about “disappointing” either side and the possibility of “rioting.” She said she “would have said guilty,” but as an alternate did not participate in the verdict. Social media posts now use her words to erroneously imply that a juror admitted outside pressure was a factor in the verdict.