Politifact on CNN: 71% of Trump's statements were false while 72% of Hillary's were TRUE..

[riversedge]

Keith Boykin ?@keithboykin 3h3 hours ago

Politifact on CNN: 71% of Donald Trump's statements were false while 72% of Hillary Clinton's statements were true.

[Buzz Clik]

1. 72% true or half true. About 50% were just true. Can we agree that is still a lot of bullshitting?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. isn't this the fact checking site that Rachel Maddow hates?

[NewJeffCT]

10. why does she hate them?

just curious.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. reasons like this

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/politifact-fails-again-destroy-277552195924

[unitedwethrive]

3. Pretty much sums up the entire election cycle

[tonyt53]

4. But 100% of Trump's supporters don't care.

[narnian60]

8. Exactly.

[Beaverhausen]

9. Politifact is liberal, don't ya know?

You know, like facts have a liberal bias.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Politifact is sort of a mixed bag for me

Some of their ratings I agree with and others baffle me like (I believe) making the ACA the subject of their "Lie of the Year" back in 2013. It seems like they go somewhat easier on Republican lies by refusing to outright rank some of their statements "False" or "Pants on Fire" when they probably should. I suppose the fact that they rankle right-wingers from time to time means, I suppose, they are doing something right, at least some of the time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Pollifact is o.k. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they don't.

[Iliyah]

5. If jounalists were journalist why would they need a fact checking outfit?

This one ha been full of shit for a long time.

[Democrats Ascendant]

6. +1

[NewJeffCT]

13. The problem with that is

that Trump spews so much bullshit that it's extremely difficult for a single journalist to call him out on everything on the fly. And, if the journalist is there by themselves and have a team of fact-checkers behind the scenes, you risk interrupting the "flow" of the conversation. ("Mr. Trump, 2 minutes ago, you claimed XYZ and, our fact checkers have found this to be false." and, then of course, Trump responds, "I never said that...&quot

[Saviolo]

20. The crux of the problem

[NewJeffCT]

23. Yep

you summed it up much better than me with your picture.

And, even when he's called on it, he just claims he never said what he's on record as saying.

[riversedge]

32. Hate to say it--but for once he is not lying. damn!

[ffr]

7. And yet CNN calls them equal?

[CajunBlazer]

11. From Politifact

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Donald Trump:

True - 4%

Mostly True - 11%

Half True - 15%

Mostly False - 18%

False - 35%

Pants on Fire - 18%

Totals:

True or Mostly true: 15%

Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire: 71%

Hillary Clinton

True: 22%

Mostly True - 28%

Half True - 22%

Mostly False - 15%

False - 11%

Pants on Fire - 2%

Totals:

True or Mostly true: 50%

Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire: 28%

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. What 18% did she lie about?

[Sancho]

16. The majority of "false" rating on Hillary are email misunderstanding...

One of the Politifact people was on CNN with this graph. She said that they rated Hillary false on "there was classified material in the emails" even though it was rated classified AFTER it was reexamined. They rated it "true" when Hillary explained in detail that the documents were not MARKED. Huh??!?!?! If it was not marked then by definition it was not classified!!

The pundit also went along with the idea that emails about drone SHOULD have been classified even though it was on the front page of the paper.

Politifact doesn't seem to get it...if the FBI, CIA, or PTA want something secret they should have labelled it BEFORE someone sent it along. If the rule is that you have to mark it, then you can't blame people or say they made a false statement when they followed the rules.

Politifact tries to be politically correct and goes along with the networks to bias their ratings.

If it wasn't for the email controversy, that graph above would be almost 100% True for Hillary.

[thesquanderer]

21. re: "If it was not marked then by definition it was not classified!!"

Not necessarily true. It is possible for something to be considered classified information even if it has not (yet) been marked that way. For example, see

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

[Sancho]

22. For these purposes it was true....

If it was vetted by staff and "classified" then it was marked and put on the classified system. That was the gatekeeper to the unsecured system.

If staff in the State Dept. received it unmarked, then an after the fact decision that it "should have been classified" doesn't make Hillary's statement "FALSE".

It is clear that the system worked very well!!! Over 30,000 emails reviewed, and half a dozen had some small comment that might have been classified!! That's damn good vetting if you ask me. It appears most of those were comments that slipped in about the secret drone program that everyone knew about anyway. As Hillary said, "the FBI report should be classified because they mention the classified emails that mentioned the drone program"! Comey should not have released a report on those conditions, so it's mostly FBI bullshit and little reality.

Even those that the FBI objected to are simply the ones in dispute across agencies. The State says it was ok but the CIA says it wasn't (or whatever).

Again, you could find someone who would ALWAYS say it was "classified", but if was not marked "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret" then it was assumed to be ok for the email system. Those were the rules the State was using. That was the definition of what was allowed on the unsecured system. Otherwise it went on the other system.

Hillary said that she did not send or receive any emails on the unsecured system marked C, S, or TS. That was rated "FALSE" because she did not use telepathy to know that someone in the CIA would disagree 4 years later?

[thesquanderer]

24. It's not a matter of telepathy.

re:

If it was vetted by staff and "classified" then it was marked and put on the classified system.

Not every email is vetted by staff before it is sent.

I'm not talking about Hillary in particular, I'm just saying that, in general, it is possible for information to be considered classified even if it is not marked as such (i.e. simply by virtue of its contents).

[flying-skeleton]

18. CNN Loves Trump

Trump made half a dozen statements last night at the Commander-in-Chief Forum, which in all honesty, should have disqualified him from the Presidency. Such as:

# Trump trashed the US military
# Trump made a mockery of our Military Generals
# Trump lied about his position on Iraq ... again
# Trump lied about the CIA briefing
# Trump professed his love for Putin ... again
# Trump blamed military sexual assaults on the victims

These are just a few of Trump's "WACKY" statements from last night in less than 30 minutes while fielding softball questions from Matt Lauer who was probably interviewing for show on the future Trump TV Network.

And today, all CNN is doing is talking about Hillary's statements about the emails and her statement that she will not want to place ground troops in a war against ISIS preferring instead to use other military means to defeat them once and for all.
Shame on CNN.They're trying to emulate Fox News while pretending to be impartial. America is not stupid and can see what is going on. No wonder CNN viewership is on the decline and their hosts are made a mockery on all the comedy channels.

[CajunBlazer]

26. I disagree completelly

It is quite clear that all of the CNN anchors and their political corespondents hate Trump with a passion, though like true professionals they do their best to hide it. That should be no surprise - the are college educated people who know exactly what is going on in this election. In addition because of their love for freedom of the press, most TV folks are liberal underneath.

That said, until recently they made the mistake to trying to treat the two candidates equally like they would do in any other Presidential race. The problem is that Trump is no ordinary candidate. He is constantly in hyperbolic mode, makes disturbing and outlandish remarks on a continual basis, and lies almost every time his lips move.

I think CNN understands their mistake because about a week ago, there was a change of tone on the network. Trump surrogates are now being corrected when they lie about Clinton, and about anything else. They are concentrating on Trump's insulting remarks said at his events and correcting his lies.

After Matt Lauer was brought to the woodshed by everyone and his brother after his appalling performance on the Commander and Chief Forum, look for all news media to start treating Trump like the fraud that he is.

PS: Your impressions can be driven by when you tuned in and how long you watched. I watched CNN a good bit this morning and, yes, I saw what you saw. However, on other segments there were opinions given by CNN political analyst that Powell's email proves that Hillary wasn't lying when she said that she consulted with Powell. There were also long segments of "let's jump on Trump, the idiot" fare.

[forest444]

19. These fact-check charts usually look like this whenever a Democrat and a Republican get together.

Why is that?

[Fast Walker 52]

25. because we don't make our own reality, like the hard right, who have ever slowly drifted into

cuckoo-land over the years, and now they exist almost entirely in a bubble of their own bullshit.

Or they live on bullshit mountain, as Jon Stewart would say.

[forest444]

29. We're what Cheney dismissively described as the "reality-based community"

And proud of it.

"What we did bothered me this much." "That much, huh?"

[Thinkingabout]

27. Republicans are used to hearing lies, Democrats know when BS happens.

[toddwv]

28. Everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias.

[BlueStateLib]

30. Doesn't matter, voters give Trump a 15 point advantage on honesty and trustworthiness

teflon don does no wrong

[Bill USA]

31. which makes the poll numbers for Trump even more surreal, bizarre, revolting

great post!