One of the most hilarious aspects of the U.S Presidential debates must surely be Hillary Clinton’s incessant encouragement to undecided voters to ‘fact check’ what she is saying. Not by visiting a genuinely impartial website, or even a dubiously sympathetic website. But by going straight to…wait for it…Hillary Clinton’s own website for their fact checking!
You could only dream of coming up with this kind of comedy gold. If Donald Trump encouraged undecided voters to fact check by visiting his website, the media would justifiably have an absolute field day with it.
Clinton fact checking on her own website is akin to someone appointing Roger Rogerson to fact check NSW police corruption allegations in his prime. It’s laughable in any context. Climate Alarmist Tim Flannery would be green with envy at the concept, with the selective nature of the Clinton Campaign when cherry-picking facts to check a sheer stroke of distractive brilliance:
What speaks volumes about the Clinton website ‘fact check’ aren’t the allegations that are checked and disputed, but those that are not. There are many gaping holes there.
Conveniently the most damning allegations are never addressed, presumably because the fact check would simply be too difficult to frame in a positive light or a way to avoid incrimination.
Remember all the times that Clinton implored that voters head straight to her fact check every time Trump brought up something irrefutable?
Wikileaks revelations, Benghazi, dodgy Clinton Foundation revelations, breaches of security protocol, the rape victims sitting right in the peanut stalls, etc. etc.?
Guess what? No addressing of any of these awkward claims that you’d think would be checked and discredited if they possibly could be. For the most part, Hillary’s fact-checkers seem to navel gaze over minor claims that the Trump campaign and alternate media (the only media not bought and paid for by the establishment) have made.
In the interest of fairness, let’s take a critical look at a few of the facts that the Clinton campaign do pretend to check.
Fact checking about Hillary’s position on the deplorable coal miners of the Appalachians makes no mention of Hillary boasting about shutting down the coal industry, just empty waffle about how Clinton will ‘revitalise struggling coal communities’ without ever mentioning that Democrat policy is gleefully accelerating the decline of the industry.
Claims that Clinton won the second debate are similarly nonsensical. Her poll sources for this conclusion have all either made substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation, or lurk on the outermost fringe of left media. Asking Slate.com who they thought won is about as reliable as asking the God Emperor Trump Facebook page who they thought won. And all important Evangelical polling (the Evangelical vote is usually the decider in U.S. elections) is notably absent.
Wikileaks isn’t referenced in terms of debunking despite even the Democrats conceding that hackers are trying to influence the election. The only leak that the Clinton Fact Check feels worthy of bringing up is of course Trump’s taxes or lack thereof. There is predictably no mention whatsoever of leaked Clinton emails of course, because that would require explaining them away, and even the machinations and manipulations of a campaign office make addressing such elephants in the room virtually impossible.
The Clinton website Fact Checker dangerously presents opinion and wishful thinking as fact, and is as selective and misleading as those old Phillip Morris commissioned studies into the effects of smoking.
At the next debate, when Hillary shrieks ‘Fact Check!’ every time Donald Trump casually mentions that she hung U.S citizens out to dry out at Benghazi, or that his p***y grabbing is rather tame compared to the extracurricular activities of her husband, please don’t look to HillaryClinton.com for confirmation or denial of the claims.
To do so makes absolutely no sense in any context, and will essentially just expose you to more of the same bull. The best way to fact check claims by D.J.T or H.R.C? First, visit this site. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
Make a note of all media organisations who have made substantial donations, and whatever they say in regard to claims made during the election, assume the opposite.
It’s your XYZ.
Photo by billy3001