Fact-Checking The Fact Checkers
Verdict: Snopes.com Is Just A Dishonest Failed Liberal Blogger Pretending To Be A “Fact Checker” To Fool The Ignorant Masses
CLAIM #1: Anyone that conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys government emails (or any other material) is disqualified from holding public office according to Federal Law, Title 18. Section 207.
You can look up Federal Law, Title 18. Section 207 and read it for yourself. It is true.
CLAIM#2: Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC to explain that Federal Law, Title 18. Section 207 should, in a non corrupt government or a perfect world, disqualify Hillary Clinton from holding public office since the FBI director admitted on camera that she did exactly that.
Both CLAIM #1 and #2 are all easily verified facts…AKA True. The law is in black and white and United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey did appear on MSNBC to explain it.
Yet go to Snopes.com to check it out and you get this:
Snopes.com has reduced the opinion of United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey to a “chain message”.
And here is the so-called “chain message”:
“It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from “holding any office under the United States”,
OK, #1 of #2 verified and confirmed by snopes.com.
“Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional…”
So the Federal Law is true, but she dug up some “legal analyst” to claim that the law itself was “possibly” unconstitutional. In other words opinionated hearsay. But this does not nullify the fact that Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC to explain that Federal Law, Title 18. Section 207 should, in a non corrupt government or a perfect world, disqualify Hillary Clinton from holding public office since the FBI director admitted on camera that she did exactly that. She also claims that Michael Mukasey was forced (by team Hillary) to recant. That, if it is true, still does not change the initial fact.
Bottom line: the facts stand, but due to the liberal spin and flat out deceit, they claim it to be “Mostly False”.
Snopes gained recognition for being the go-to site for setting the record straight once and for all. Snopes is the go-to site for political fact-checkers.
But Snopes’ “fact-checking” is just a propaganda wing for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and even it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”
The following is a snopes.com assessment by Peter Hasson:
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known more for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes than any real truths.
While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship.
he described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
She once wrote on snopes.com: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligence” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her wild accusation.)
Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.
After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered no fact-based evidence to support her claim.
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”
In that “fact check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled: The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.
Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”
One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality.