PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2016-10-31 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Is Clinton Paying Halfway House Residents $300 Per Vote? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • A video posted online on 29 October 2016 shows an unidentified man who says that he had been promised a $300 rebate check on his Medi-Cal payments if he votes for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. There is no location identified in the video, but it makes reference to the man's boarding care facility, saying that if [Clinton is] president, he would receive forms for him to sign to get the alleged payment: The video was also posted on YouTube, but without any additional information. A thread on Reddit claimed that it was filmed at a facility in California, but that has not been confirmed, and one version of the claim attributes it to Buzzfeed without offering any proof. Clinton's campaign has not responded to a request for comment. The footage also falls in line with other unsubstantiated allegations against Clinton. Earlier in the month, her campaign was accused of having residents in an assisted living facility in Florida vote for the Democratic presidential nominee via absentee ballot. In March 2016, conservative radio host Dan Rea aired a phone interview with a listener claiming that her brother and other residents of a Massachusetts facility for developmentally-disabled adults were promised meals at McDonald's if they voted for Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the state's Democratic primary. A 26 October 2016 survey by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California stated that 54 percent of likely voters in the state said they would vote for Clinton for president, compared to 28 percent who said they would vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump. The odds of Trump winning California (historically one of the bluest states in the nation) combined with the economic unfeasibility of paying each voting resident of a halfway house hundreds of dollars — along with the fact that the video was unvetted and contained no supporting evidence or citations — makes the claim so far-fetched as to be unequivocally false. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url