Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Fact Checker video: Donald Trump’s far-reaching but false claim about the Iraq War

, June 10, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com...-about-the-iraq-war/

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fposttv-thumbnails-prod%2Fthumbnails%2F5756a1e6e4b0f0ecbae5cefc%2Ftrumpiraq.jpg&w=650

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly and falsely stated that he was against the Iraq War "from the beginning." As his repetitions multiply, larger and larger audiences have heard his Four-Pinnochio statement go uncorrected. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump frequently — and falsely — says he opposed the Iraq War “from the beginning,” ahead of the invasion. He uses this as a contrast to Hillary Clinton, who in 2002 voted in favor of authorization for President George W. Bush to launch an invasion if negotiations failed with Iraq over its alleged illicit weapons programs. (She now calls the vote a mistake.)

But Trump’s claim is blatantly false, and has been debunked thoroughly. We awarded it Four Pinocchios, and compiled a timeline of Trump’s comments in 2002 and 2003 about the Iraq invasion, which showed he was not vocal about his opposition prior to the invasion.

Yet Trump has been repeating it in interviews and speeches since September 2015 — to larger and larger audiences who have heard this Four-Pinocchio claim go uncorrected.

We took a snapshot look at just how far-reaching this false claim has been the past nine months.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Trump on Lewandowski firing: 'Time for a different kind of campaign'

By , Updated

160620_trump_oreilly_AP_1160.jpgDonald Trump speaks during his interview with Bill O'Reilly on the Fox news talk show The O'Reilly Factor, Nov. 6, 2015. | AP Photo
 

Donald Trump lavished praise on fired campaign manager Corey Lewandowski Monday night, but told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly that the reshuffling signaled a shift in the campaign's strategy.

"I think Corey’s terrific. I watched him before. He was terrific toward me. Said I was a talented person. And he’s a talented person," Trump said on "The O'Reilly Factor." "He’s a good guy. He’s a friend of mine. But I think it’s time now for a different kind of a campaign. We ran a small, beautiful, well-unified campaign. It worked very well in the primaries."

The real estate mogul hinted at a potential change in tone for the campaign, something Republican leaders have been calling for as he prepares to enter into a race against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

"We’re going to go a little bit of a different route from this point forward," Trump said. "A little different style."

Trump also dismissed the notion that internal tensions in the campaign caused issues between Lewandowski and other staffers. Asked about office politics, Trump replied: "That's part of the business."

“Well it happens all over. You talk about office politics. It’s all over. And yes, I think it does happen here too. It happens everywhere," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said.

The comments came of the heels of a contentious afternoon in the Trump camp, which saw campaign adviser Michael Caputo resign after celebrating the Lewandowski firing on Facebook.

Trump's statement on Fox News also served as his first comments on the matter since the firing, with the usually talkative Trump failing to comment on the decision on social media Monday.
 

During the interview, Trump also addressed speculation about his running mate, telling O'Reilly that a decision would come at the Republican National Convention next month in Cleveland. Trump also praised Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, whose name has come up as a potential pick for the vice presidency slot.

"He’s got good judgment. He’s a good guy. He’s been amazingly helpful," Trump said of Gingrich. "I watch him on the different shows, including yours, but I’m with him also. He’s got very great talent.”

Trump also discussed recent polls, which show him trailing Clinton in a general election match-up, downplaying the results as being too early to forecast the outcome of the race.

“I think it’s very close. I think that probably one poll came out pretty much even," he said. "I just don’t know. It’s fairly early to have polling. I think we haven’t even gotten started yet. You know I’m just literally just starting. And I view the convention as probably a real starting point. But I think it’s pretty even from what I’m seeing.

FM

Latest Polls

Poll
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Other
Spread
Jun 15 – Jun 20
     
3,891 Registered Voters424017 Clinton +2
1,451 Registered Voters - Democrat801010 Clinton +70
1,175 Registered Voters - Republican98011 Trump +71
1,265 Registered Voters - independent303931 Trump +9
Jun 15 – Jun 19
     
803 Registered Voters474085Clinton +7
Registered Voters - Democrat87652Clinton +81
Registered Voters - Republican88444Trump +76
Registered Voters - independent4237119Clinton +5
Jun 16 – Jun 16
2,197 Registered Voters
5045 5Clinton +5
Jun 11 – Jun 15
     
1,323 Registered Voters41321115Clinton +9
Registered Voters - Democrat758511Clinton +67
Registered Voters - Republican6681214Trump +62
Registered Voters - independent27251930Clinton +2
Jun 14 – Jun 15
1,000 Likely Voters
4439414Clinton +5
CNBC NEW!
Jun 11 – Jun 13
801 Registered Voters
403592Clinton +5
Jun 9 – Jun 13
     
1,048 Registered Voters4337155Clinton +6
369 Registered Voters - Democrat816103Clinton +75
305 Registered Voters - Republican673164Trump +67
374 Registered Voters - independent3537218Trump +2
Jun 10 – Jun 13
750 Likely Voters
493749Clinton +12
Jun 6 – Jun 12
9,355 Registered Voters
49429 Clinton +7
Jun 8 – Jun 9
     
1,362 Registered Voters423721 Clinton +5
477 Registered Voters - Democrat78814 Clinton +70
433 Registered Voters - Republican137413 Trump +61
452 Registered Voters - independent323335 Trump +1

 

2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Source -- http://elections.huffingtonpos...ion-trump-vs-clinton

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Current Summary

 ClintonTrumpMargin
Trump Best231307Trump by 76 EV
Expected338200Clinton by 138 EV
Clinton Best390148Clinton by 242 EV
The tipping point state is Pennsylvania where Clinton is ahead by 3.4%.

The 'Expected' scenario represents each candiate winning all the states they are ahead in. 'Best' scenarios represent the candidate winning all of the states they are ahead in, plus all of their opponent's 'weak' states.

 

The 'tipping point' state is the state that puts the winning candidate over the top if the states are sorted by margin.

 

2016 Electoral College

Clinton vs Trump - National Summary

Most Recent Poll (middate): 2016-06-15 00:00 UTC

Last Poll Update: 2016-06-19 06:58 UTC

140.9 days until polls start to close

Source -- http://electiongraphs.com/2016...ys=0&Format=spec

FM
Cobra posted:

The national poll will skyrocket in Trump's favor after the first Clinton/Trump debate. You heard this before and you will hear it again.

The national poll always skyrocket for each presidential representative after the respective party's convention and the race will then be on for the November 2014 elections.

On election night in November, Hillary Clinton will be elected President of the US_of_A.   

FM

“The LGBT community, the gay community, the lesbian community — they are so much in favor of what I’ve been saying over the last three or four days. Ask the gays what they think and what they do, in, not only Saudi Arabia, but many of these countries, and then you tell me — who’s your friend, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?"

–Donald Trump in a boast that provoked widespread ridicule from the LGBT community, June 15, 2016

Source -- http://politicalhumor.about.co...ald-Trump-Quotes.htm

FM

Yep, Donald Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy...more than four times

Hillary Clinton mocked Donald Trump’s business failings in a major speech arguing that the presumptive Republican nominee would be disastrous for the economy.

"He’s written a lot of books about business. They all seem to end at Chapter 11," Clinton quipped, adding. "He bankrupted his companies not once, not twice, but four times."

We rated a similarly worded claim from Trump’s former primary rival Carly Fiorina Mostly True, because it’s not accurate to say Trump is solely to blame. (For the record, Trump doesn’t deny the charge and instead argues it was a smart business decision.) At the time, we found four bankruptcies, but since then, we’ve found two more for a total of six. So Clinton was right that Trump bankrupted companies four times, and she could have offered a higher count as well.

Let’s go through them one by one.

Bankruptcy No. 1: The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991

Trump’s first bankruptcy may have hit the businessman, personally, the hardest, according to news reports.

He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, N.J., which opened in 1990, primarily with junk bonds at a whopping 14 percent interest. A year later, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities. So Trump decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times.

As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.

Bankruptcy No. 2: Trump Castle, 1992

Within a year of his first Chapter 11 filing, Trump found himself in bankruptcy court again for Trump Castle, which opened in 1985. It was his "weakest gambling hall," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and ironically faced competition from Trump Taj Mahal. In March 1992, the Castle filed a prepackaged bankruptcy plan, and Trump gave up his 50 percent share in the casino for lower interest rates on $338 million worth of bonds.

Bankruptcy No. 3: Trump Plaza and Casino, 1992

The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1984, declared bankruptcy at the same time as the Castle. A $210 million joint project of Trump’s and Harrah’s, the casino had racked up $250 million in debt by 1992, after a staggering 80 percent decline in cash flow. So Trump Plaza filed for prepackaged bankruptcy that spring as well.

Bankruptcy No. 4: Plaza Hotel, 1992

Later that year, Trump filed bankruptcy on another Plaza, this one in New York. Trump purchased the Plaza Hotel in Midtown Manhattan for $390 million in 1988, but it accumulated more than $550 million in debt by 1992. In December 1992, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News. Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture; he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations, according to the New York Times.

Bankruptcy No. 5: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004

Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004 when his casinos -- including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana -- had accrued an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to the Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he was still the company’s largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Trump told the Associated Press at the time that the company represented less than 1 percent of his net worth.

Bankruptcy No. 6: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009

Trump Entertainment Resorts -- formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts -- was hit hard by the 2008 economic recession and missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. It declared Chapter 11 in February 2009. After debating with the company’s board of directors, Trump resigned as the company’s chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump’s name in licensing.

Whose fault is it anyways?

Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry.

Trump was acting, they said, as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy, Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, previously told us.

He added that people typically wouldn’t personally blame former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or investor Warren Buffett for individual failures within their investment companies, Bain Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, respectively.

"The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space," Levitin said.

Our ruling

Clinton said, Trump has "bankrupted his companies not once, not twice but four times."

Trump has actually filed Chapter 11 six times, four times within two years in the 1990s, once more in 2004 and once more in 2009. But experts told us Trump shouldn’t bear all the responsibility, as Clinton’s wording suggests, as the majority of bankruptcies happened as the overall casino industry struggled.

We rate her claim Mostly True.

FM

Trump wrong that Clinton's refugee plan would cost more than rebuilding all inner cities

==============================

Trump’s numbers are off by a huge margin.

We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

==============================

A day after Hillary Clinton gave her list of Donald Trump’s many flaws on the economy, Trump returned the favor. In a speech from New York, he called her a "world-class liar" who has "spent her entire life making money for special interests."

Trump delivered a broadside on Clinton’s immigration policies — to him, they represent "mass amnesty" and "open borders" — and blended those faults with her plans for refugees.

"Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration," Trump said. "For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America."

We asked the Trump campaign where he got those spending numbers and did not hear back. But as you’ll see, whatever number Clinton could conceivably spend resettling refugees come nowhere near what it would cost to rebuild America’s urban centers.

The cost of refugees

The only numbers we could find for Clinton’s budget plans were $15 million for immigrant integration services (from her campaign website), and $582 million to resettle 70,000 refugees. The second figure comes from an analysis of federal refugee spending by the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

We used that as one starting point.

President Barack Obama seeks to increase the number of refugees accepted from around the world to 100,000. That includes 10,000 Syrian refugees. Clinton has said she wants to take in 65,000 Syrians. If we add her higher number to Obama’s, and we assume she wouldn’t trim his plan, we can estimate a total number of refugees of 155,000.

Scaling up the dollar amounts, we can roughly estimate a total cost for her plan of about $1.3 billion. That is about half a percent of the "hundreds of billions" that Trump claimed.

We also looked at the Obama administration’s FY 2017 budget request for refugee and entrant assistance. That is a bit under $2.2 billion for 100,000 refugees. When you add in the additional costs for more resettled Syrian refugees, you might get a budget in the neighborhood of $3 billion to $4 billion.

The cost of rebuilding inner cities

Trump used a term that generally refers to low-income urban neighborhoods. What he meant by rebuilding them is unclear. It could include rebuilding substandard housing, fixing aging water systems, investing in schools and job training, creating an enticing business environment, or any number of aspects of life where low-income communities are lacking.

Solomon Greene, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, an academic center in Washington, told us he knows of no comprehensive study that added up the rehabilitation needs of every American city. He did, however, note that alone there is a $26 billion backlog to repair the nation’s public housing.

"It’s a very conservative estimate," Greene said. "It only includes public housing, and that’s a small share of the low-income housing stock."

Not all public housing is in urban centers, but Greene, a housing specialist, told us that the great majority of it is.

New York City alone could use billions of dollars in improvements.

The Center for an Urban Future, a research and policy group supported by funders ranging from MetLife to the Child Welfare Fund, estimated that fixing the Big Apple’s aging infrastructure would cost about $47 billion over five years.

Researchers at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, an urban planning research center in Cambridge, Mass., found a number of estimates for different urban needs.

  • The Federal Transit Administration estimated in 2013 that it will cost $85.9 billion to bring the nation’s transit systems to a state of good repair.

  • The Council on Great City Schools said facility needs for schools in the 50 largest cities will cost $85 billion.

  • The institute’s director George McCarthy estimated that it would cost $975 million just to demolish abandoned structures in Detroit.

We could go further, but the numbers are clear. Barely scratching the surface of the needs of America’s cities, we find a price tag of over $225 billion.

Even if Clinton doubled the Obama administration’s funding for refugees, the money would barely make a dent.

Our ruling

Trump said that Clinton wants to spend hundreds of billions on refugees and for that money, "we could rebuild every inner city in America." Trump’s campaign provided no supporting numbers.

Clinton has not said how much she would spend on refugees, but the Obama administration request for FY 2017 is about $2.2 billion. That figure could increase for Clinton, as she has said she wants to take in more Syrian refugees. If it doubles or even triples, it is nowhere near "hundreds of billions."

It is also a scant fraction of the price tag to rebuild America’s inner cities. There is no comprehensive tally of what it would take to deal with substandard housing and infrastructure, but we quickly found a backlog of about $225 billion in projects.

Trump’s numbers are off by a huge margin. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

FM

Trump still wrong on his claim that opposed Iraq War ahead of the invasion

============================

This claim rates False.

============================

Donald Trump speaking June 22, 2016. (Getty)

Presumptive Republican presidential Donald Trump keeps selling the myth that he was against Iraq War even before the war started.

In a policy speech June 22, 2016, in New York, Trump tried to contrast himself with his likely fall opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

"In short, Hillary Clinton’s tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another," Trump said. "It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place.

"Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started," Trump said.

Trump is correct that Clinton supported the war in Iraq. But Trump is wrong to suggest he opposed the war before it started.

We searched newspaper articles and television transcripts from 2002 and 2003 amid the debate leading up to the Iraq War. We didn’t find any examples of Trump unequivocally denouncing the war until a year after the war began.

Trump’s comments

Most damning to Trump’s claim is a September 2002 interview in which Trump said he supported the Iraq invasion.

Shock jock Howard Stern asked Trump if he supported the looming invasion.

Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so."

This goes directly against Trump’s claims that he criticized the rush to war before the war began.

On Jan. 28, 2003, just under three months before the invasion, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto asked Trump whether President George W. Bush should be more focused on Iraq or the economy.

Speaking of Iraq, Trump said, "Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."

Trump’s comment here suggests he was skeptical of the mission in Iraq, and he said the economy should be a higher priority.

But does this prove Trump prove was "among the earliest to criticize the rush to war"?

Hardly.

A week after the United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, Trump gave differing takes. At an Academy Awards after-party, Trump said that "the war’s a mess," according to the Washington Post. He told Fox News that because of the war, "The market’s going to go up like a rocket."

Trump’s harshest criticism came more than a year into the war, in an August 2004 article in Esquire:

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.

"What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!"

He told CNN’s Larry King in November 2004, "I do not believe that we made the right decision going into Iraq, but, you know, hopefully, we'll be getting out."

Clearly Trump opposed the Iraq War in its early years. There’s no evidence, though, that he advocated against the war in the first place, or that he was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war.

Our ruling

On the Iraq War, Trump said, "I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started."

The record just doesn’t support this.

We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion where he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. In another interview, Trump said he supported the invasion.

This claim rates False.

FM

Donald Trump flubs claim that Hillary Clinton deleted her support of trade deal from her book

=========================

Anyone who compares the hardcover and paperback versions of the book can see that the claim is ridiculous.

We rate it Pants On Fire!

Pants on Fire!

Deleted? So why are her comments still there?

=========================

Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton of trying to delete part of her personal history during a June 22, 2016, speech that focused in part on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Clinton tried to promote the deal as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, but she withdrew her support for the 12-nation pact in October 2015 amid sharp criticism from Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders.

In his speech, Donald Trump took credit for getting her to change her mind and accused her of trying to cover up her support.

"Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas — and give up congressional power to an international foreign commission," Trump said. "Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it.

"She has even deleted this record of total support from her book," he said, adding, "deletion is something she is very good at," a reference to the tens of thousands of emails she deleted on her home internet server.

Did Hillary Clinton actually censor her own book to hide her past support for the trade agreement that has since come under fire?

We contacted the Trump campaign asking for its facts to back up the claim. They didn't respond to our query.

For starters, there is no evidence that any of Trump's comments have influenced Clinton's thoughts on the treaty.

As for the treaty itself, Clinton offered support for it in 2012, long before the deal was finalized. She hailed the deal as "setting the gold standard" during a 2012 speech in Australia, to name just one example. She now says she was, at the time, trying to sell the deal to U.S. allies as a member of the Obama administration.

The deal was reached in October 2015, well after Clinton departed as secretary of state, and signed the following the February.

During her debates with Sanders, Clinton said she had waited until the deal was actually negotiated before ultimately deciding to oppose it. Because of her early supportive comments, we rated her statement Half True.

So what, if anything, did she say about the deal in her book Hard Choices?

The book was published in June 2014, with a deal still more than a year away.

On pages 77 and 78 of hardcover edition, she said the deal "would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property."

Clinton also refers to it as "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."

"Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement," she wrote, echoing the stance she would take when Sanders criticized her support for the deal. "It’s safe to say that the TPP won’t be perfect—no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be—but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."

So how much of this did Clinton delete from the paperback edition, which the publisher says was trimmed to accommodate the smaller size?

Nothing.

The pages are now renumbered as 69 and 70, but the content is the same.

We found one reference to the TPP that was cut. Here it is from page 254, in a chapter dealing with Latin American issues:

So we worked hard to improve and ratify trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and encouraged Canada and the group of countries that became known as the Pacific Alliance -- Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile -- all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the trans-Pacific trade agreement. The Alliance stood in stark contrast to Venezuela, with its more authoritarian policies and state-controlled economy.

That's a description of trying to get other countries involved, not a ringing endorsement.

Finally, Clinton came out in opposition to the deal after it was finalized in October 2015. By then, the paperback had been out for six months.

Our ruling

Trump said Hillary Clinton "has even deleted this record of total support (for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) from her book."

The paperback removed a small reference to the TPP but the two pages that talked about it and why the agreement was important weren't deleted. The paperback edition continues to have text expressing support for the trade deal.

Anyone who compares the hardcover and paperback versions of the book can see that the claim is ridiculous.

We rate it Pants On Fire!

FM

What do we know about Hillary Clinton's religion? A lot, actually

===============================

Trump’s statement is inaccurate and ridiculous.

We rate it Pants on Fire.

Pants on Fire!

Only if you don't look

===============================

Donald Trump has once again questioned a presidential candidate’s religious affiliation, accusing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton of shielding her religious preference from the public eye.

Speaking prior to a gathering hosted by the conservative Christian activist organization United in Purpose, Trump said there has been no public reference to Clinton’s religion. The comment was captured in a video from E.W. Jackson, a former nominee for Virginia lieutenant governor who attended the gathering.

"We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion," Trump said in the video. "Now, she's been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there's no — there's nothing out there. There’s like nothing out there."

This is not the first time Trump has questioned a candidate’s religion. In 2011, Trump floated the possibility that President Barack Obama, whose path to Christianity is well-documented, could be a Muslim.

At the gathering, Trump also made the broader claim that Clinton would not protect religious liberty.

"We can’t be again politically correct and say we pray for all our leaders, because all of your leaders are selling Christianity down the tubes, selling evangelicals down the tubes," he said.

So, what does Clinton have to say about her religion? A lot, we found out.

On the campaign trail

Let’s get this out of the way: Clinton is a Methodist, and the record on that is abundantly clear.

The Clinton campaign directed us to several news articles where Clinton discussed her religion, including a Jan. 25 campaign rally in Knoxville, Iowa. When asked about her beliefs, Clinton cited her Methodist faith and tied it into her support for the poor, citing the teachings of Jesus.

"Because it sure does seem to favor the poor and the merciful and those who in worldly terms don’t have a lot but who have the spirit that God recognizes as being at the core of love and salvation," she said.

She went on to criticize those who use Christianity to "condemn so quickly and judge so harshly."

In February 2016, after the New Hampshire primary, Clinton paraphrased a phrase popular among Methodists and often attributed to John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church.

"You know, my family and my faith taught me a simple credo — do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, for all the people you can," she said.

She called upon her personal spirituality during her unsuccessful 2008 bid for president.

"I was raised to pray, you know, as a little girl, you know, saying my prayers at night, saying grace at meals, praying in, you know, church," she said at a 2007 presidential forum.

Clinton has definitely brought up her religious background on the campaign trail this time around to convey both her political and personal philosophies. However, the intended message has not always hit home with voters.

A 2016 Pew poll found that 43 percent of people found Clinton "not religious" compared to 60 percent for Trump. A 2008 Pew poll had 31 percent thinking her not religious, 53 percent only somewhat religious.

Formative years

Religion has played a large role in Clinton’s life even before "there was any political advantage to do so," said Patrick Maney, a Bill Clinton biographer and professor of history at Boston College.

Hillary Clinton’s religious upbringing starts around the sixth grade in Park Ridge, Ill., where she attended Bible classes and participated in the Altar Guild at the First United Methodist Church, writes Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carl Bernstein in his Clinton biography.

There, she met Don Jones, a Methodist youth minister who took Clinton under his wing. At Jones’ memorial in 2009, Clinton attributed her pursuit of social justice to Jones’ teaching.

"He taught me the meaning of the words ‘faith in action’ and the importance of social justice and human rights," she said at the time.

In the conservative community of Park Ridge, Jones was considered to be more liberal and a free thinker, occasionally drawing ire for it. Jones made it a point to teach Clinton how "Jesus would deal with social issues," said William Chafe, a professor of history at Duke University who has studied Clinton extensively.

"He took Hillary and the youth group into the slums of Chicago, had them interact with poor blacks and Puerto Ricans, and brought them to hear (Martin Luther King, Jr.) preach," Chafe said. "Even though her father was a Goldwater Republican."

Jones was eventually asked to leave by members of the community, notably one of Clinton’s teachers Paul Carlson, who found his teachings too radical. The disagreements they had informed her shift in political philosophy, Clinton wrote in her 2003 autobiography Living History.

"Though my eyes were opening, I still mostly parroted the conventional wisdom of Park Ridge’s and my father’s politics," she wrote. "While Don Jones threw me into ‘liberalizing’ experiences, Paul Carlson … reinforced my already strong anti-communist views."

Her critics have actually used her relationship with Jones against her as a "radicalizing influence," Maney said. However, even after leaving for Wellesley College, the two kept in touch.

"I wonder if it's possible to be a mental conservative and a heart liberal," she wrote Jones in a letter, reflecting on her changing political ideology and its religious influences.

Conservative historian Paul Kengor, author of the book God and Hillary Clinton, told PolitiFact that Clinton has deviated from recent Methodist doctrine on abortion and gay marriage.

The United Methodist Church recently voted in May on actions to the contrary of Clinton’s views on those topics — withdrawing from a pro-choice group and choosing not to alter its stance on gay marriage.

"I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare," she said at a 2008 forum commenting on how her Methodist tradition has complicated the issue.

Kengor said in an interview with Christianity Today hat Clinton "walks step by step with the Methodist leadership into a very liberal Christianity."  

She continued to attend church at Wellesley, and Chafe noted that her social justice pursuits meshed with her religious convictions once she got to Yale as well.

"She immediately identified with Marion Wright Edelman's Children's Defense Fund at Yale and worked with them after graduating from Yale," Chafe said. The group advocated for family rights.

The trend continues after moving to Arkansas in the 1970s, where she taught Sunday school at the First United Methodist Church, Maney said.

Clinton also attended the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington as first lady. Kengor told PolitiFact she was considered a "regular" at the church, which is considered to be more liberal than the larger Methodist denomination.

Bill Clinton is a Baptist, not a Methodist. Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, was raised a Methodist.

In her own words

Clinton has said that "advertising" her faith publicly is not her first instinct. Chafe noted she has relied on it less extensively in the recent past.

Nonetheless, she has expounded on her faith in several public comments and books since entering the national spotlight with the election of her husband as president in 1992.

"Bill and I went into our bedroom, closed the door and prayed together for God’s help as he took on this awesome honor and responsibility," Clinton wrote in Living History of her husband winning the 1992 election.

In the same book, she describes meeting her "prayer partners" at the 1993 National Prayer Breakfast, and the gifts of Scripture they provided her.

"Of all the thousands of gifts I received in my eight years in the White House, few were more welcome and needed than these 12 intangible gifts of discernment, peace, compassion, faith, fellowship, vision, forgiveness, grace, wisdom, love, joy and courage," she wrote.

Her first book — It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us — published in 1996, includes a section devoted to Clinton’s religious affiliation, "Children are Born Believers." In the chapter, she marvels about children’s potential to grasp spiritual issues and cites it as reason to defend religious freedom.

"We are only children of God, not God. Therefore, we must not attempt to fit God into little boxes, claiming that He supports this or that political position," she wrote.

References to Clinton’s faith surfaced in 1998, when news of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky hit the press, and in 2000 when she campaigned for the U.S. Senate.

In 2014, Clinton spoke to United Methodist Women, citing the Methodist Church as inspiring her to "advocate for children and families, for women and men around the world who are oppressed and persecuted, denied their human rights and human dignity."

"I’ll always cherish the Methodist Church because it gave us the great gift of personal salvation, but the great obligation of social gospel, and for me, having faith, hope, and love in action was exactly what we were called to do," she said.

Our ruling

Trump said, "We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion."

The reality is we were able to find quite a lot about Clinton’s Methodist upbringing and beliefs, and how she says it ties into her political philosophy. We documented just some of what we found here, and experts agree there is more out there.

Trump’s statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire.

FM

Clinton: Trump called pregnant employees 'an inconvenience'

===========================

Clinton’s claim is accurate. We rate it True.

Clinton
Says Donald Trump called pregnant employees "an inconvenience."

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, June 21st, 2016 in a rally in Columbus, Ohio

===========================

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton uncorked a torrent of criticism on her opponent, Donald Trump, at a rally in Ohio’s capital city. The premise: what America’s economy would look like with Trump in charge.

"Over the years, he’s said all kinds of things about women in the workforce," Clinton said. "He once called pregnant employees -- and I quote -- ‘an inconvenience.’ "

Clinton went on to say that even she was incredulous that Trump made remarks like the "inconvenience" statement, despite assurances from her researchers and speechwriters.

We searched for the clip.

Trump’s comment stems from a Dateline NBC interview of Trump from 2004. The segment, "Blonde Ambition," was about Carolyn Kepcher, Trump’s Apprentice sidekick and executive vice president of Trump’s golf properties. Kepcher had just released Carolyn 101, a memoir of her business experience.

Kepcher describes herself as a straight-shooter, but as her Dateline interviewer points out, that seems to conflict with an anecdote in the book in which Kepcher recounts waiting six months before telling Trump that she was pregnant.

"You were worried that he might feel inconvenienced?" the reporter asked.

"Maybe, in my mind, he might think perhaps that this might be a setback," Kepcher answered.

When the piece turned to Trump, he answered a question that the viewers don’t get to hear, due to editing. "Well you know, pregnancy is never, um -- it’s a wonderful thing for the woman, it’s a wonderful thing for the husband, it’s certainly an inconvenience for a business. And whether people want to say that or not, the fact is it is an inconvenience for a person that is running a business."

Because the viewers don’t hear the question Trump is responding to, and the only other person to use the word "inconvenience" was the Dateline reporter, it’s possible that the term may have been introduced as part of the reporter’s question.

Studies have shown that the costs of accommodating pregnant employees is minimal. The National Women’s Law Center published a fact sheet in 2012 that pointed out that the accommodations employers already provide for disabled employees are much the same as what pregnant women require, only temporarily. And the positive gains -- better recruitment and retention of workers, boosts in productivity, reductions in absenteeism, better workplace safety -- far outweigh any costs, according to the fact sheet.

Trump’s views on pregnancy didn’t sway Kepcher’s admiration for her former boss. "If there’s one thing I’ve learned from Donald, it’s to make a decision, make it fast, and stick with it," she said.

Trump certainly didn’t view his daughter Ivanka’s pregnancy as an inconvenience when she stood beside him, well into her third trimester, stumping in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Trump told crowds in both states that he’d love for his daughter to have her baby there.

"You know, she had a baby like five days ago," Trump said of Ivanka at a March rally in New York, about 10 days after Ivanka gave birth. "She did a good job. So I should not say Ivanka, you're fired, right? I promise."

We searched but were unable to find any additional comments made by Trump about women employees becoming pregnant.

Our ruling

Clinton said that Trump called pregnancy "an inconvenience" for business owners. Trump indeed used that word in a 2004 interview with NBC’s Dateline.

"The fact is it is an inconvenience for a person that is running a business," Trump said.

Clinton’s claim is accurate. We rate it True.

FM

Hillary Clinton correct that analysts have called Donald Trump a top global economic risk

But the Trump threat level increased in the July 2016 rankings. A Trump presidency now ranks as the third-biggest global threat, with an increased score of 16 on the 25-point scale. In the meantime, the risk from jihadi terrorism has remained constant with a score of 12.

==================================

Hillary Clinton, riding a bump in the polls, kept the heat on Donald Trump during a speech in Cincinnati that marked the first time she had campaigned alongside Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the progressive wing of her party.

"Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism," Clinton said during the speech on June 27, 2016.

We don’t take a position on whether Trump actually is one of the top threats facing the global economy. But we thought we’d check to see whether Clinton has solid evidence that professional risk analysts have made that argument.

So is Clinton right about how analysts have rated Trump? Basically, yes.

When we asked the Clinton campaign what she was referring to, they pointed us to the periodic rankings of global risk published by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The Economist Intelligence Unit -- an affiliate of The Economist, the London-based newsweekly -- is a research and analysis firm that supplies clients, including businesses, with information about opportunities and risks around the world.

The firm made headlines in March 2016 when it listed the possibility of a Trump presidency as one of the biggest threats to "companies’ capacity to operate at target profitability." The rankings are based on "qualitative" judgments of a how powerfully an event could affect the world and how likely it is to happen, the firm says.

In its March ratings, the firm rated the risks from a Trump presidency as 12 on a 25-point scale. That ranked Trump sixth among the 10-item list of biggest threats, tied with "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy."

But the Trump threat level increased in the July 2016 rankings. A Trump presidency now ranks as the third-biggest global threat, with an increased score of 16 on the 25-point scale. In the meantime, the risk from jihadi terrorism has remained constant with a score of 12.

In the July ratings, the only higher scores were 20 for "China experiences a hard landing" and, in a tie with Trump, a 16 for "currency volatility and persistent commodity prices weakness."

Specifically, the firm wrote that "although we do not expect Mr. Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a sudden economic downturn." The writeup cited his "hostility" to free trade, his hard line on Muslims, his "militaristic tendencies," his skepticism toward NATO, and his "indifference" to nuclear proliferation in Asia.

The firm had never rated a pending candidacy to be a geopolitical risk to the United States and the world, an official told Politico.

FM

Trump wrongly says Clinton filibustered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation

===============================

Our ruling

We rate this claim False.

In an attempt to assign responsibility for the financial crisis to Clinton, Trump’s campaign accused her of filibustering legislation that would have changed how two government-backed mortgage giants were regulated.

Republican leadership chose not to bring the bill before the whole Senate after it passed out of committee. It is possible that they thought Democratic senators would filibuster, but based on the evidence available, we found no evidence that Clinton herself took any action in relation to the bill.

===============================

Responsibility for the 2008 housing crisis is at stake in a new attack launched by Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton filibustered legislation to reform Fannie and Freddie Mae – institutions at the center of the Great Recession – which have been funneling hundreds of thousands to Hillary Clinton's campaign and Foundation," a statement from the Trump campaign said on June 21.

Republican changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulation never faced a cloture vote, the most clear-cut procedural sign that a filibuster has occurred. (The statement calls mistakenly calls them Fannie and Freddie Mae).

Without a cloture vote, the question of whether the bill was filibustered becomes "a gray area," according to one expert in congressional use of the filibuster. If a filibuster did occur, it's even harder to say that Clinton was responsible.

Trump’s statement presumably refers to a Republican-backed attempt in 2005 to bolster regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two huge government-backed mortgage finance companies. The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment, but the statement itself cited a CNBC opinion piece.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed out of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on a party line vote. It was never brought before the full Senate.

After the mortgage collapse revealed the vulnerability of America’s housing market, some pointed to the bill as evidence of Republican foresight and Democratic obstruction. Experts disagree on the role Fannie and Freddie played in causing the financial crisis, but they certainly experienced its results: billions were spent bailing out the companies.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska introduced the bill, and every committee Republican voted to move it out of committee. The question, then, is why Republican leadership did not introduce it on the floor of the full Senate, where they also had a majority.

One possibility is that they suspected that Senate Democrats, including Clinton, would oppose the bill as a bloc, as the Democrats on the committee had done. Democrats had enough votes to sustain a successful filibuster if they had wanted to, and the then-Senate minority leader Harry Reid expressed his opposition when the bill passed out of committee.

Experts are divided on whether even an explicit threat of a filibuster by the majority should be counted as a use of the filibuster power.

The only mention of a filibuster in contemporary coverage of the bill’s progress is a quote from Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

"The word ‘filibuster’ is nowhere near the horizon," Dodd, a leading opponent of the bill, told reporters after the bill passed out of committee. Democratic and Republican senators both expressed optimism that a compromise version of the bill would go forward.

Some accounts of the bill’s progress suggest that Dodd later blocked the bill by telling Sen. Richard Shelby, the head of the committee that passed the bill, that he planned to filibuster it.

Democratic opposition was more widely expressed, but some Republican senators may have been reluctant as well. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbied some Republican senators to oppose the bill, the Associated Press reported.

Without a vote or a public statement, it is impossible to see where individual senators who did not vote on the bill in committee, like Clinton, stood on the issue.

Clinton never voted or publicly took a position on the bill. In contemporary reporting about the bill’s progress, her name is not mentioned.

Three political scientists we spoke to had different standards for determining when a filibuster occurred, but all agreed that without specific evidence that she took some action to block it, it did not make sense to say Clinton filibustered the bill.

"In the absence of clear evidence, I’m not sure how you ascribe it to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat," Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University, said.

Clinton’s campaigns and the Clinton Foundation have both taken large donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s employees and an associated Political Action Committee. In 2008, Clinton was the fourth highest recipient of donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s employees and PACs.

Our ruling

In an attempt to assign responsibility for the financial crisis to Clinton, Trump’s campaign accused her of filibustering legislation that would have changed how two government-backed mortgage giants were regulated.

Republican leadership chose not to bring the bill before the whole Senate after it passed out of committee. It is possible that they thought Democratic senators would filibuster, but based on the evidence available, we found no evidence that Clinton herself took any action in relation to the bill.

We rate this claim False.

FM

Donald Trump Deletes Tweet Showing Hillary Clinton and Star of David Shape

Donald J. Trump at the Western Conservative Summit on Friday in Denver. Credit David Zalubowski/Associated Press

Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, came under fire on Saturday for posting on Twitter an image of the Star of David shape next to a picture of Hillary Clinton and calling his opponent the “most corrupt candidate ever!”

The post that Donald J. Trump deleted from his Twitter account.
 

While the six-pointed star is used in other contexts, including as a symbol of many Sheriff’s Departments, it has deep meaning in Judaism and the image was overlayed atop a pile of money. It appeared to play into the stereotype of Jews being obsessed with finances. After being derided on social media, Mr. Trump deleted the post and replaced it with one that had a circle instead of the star shape.

Crooked Hillary -- Makes History!

While Mr. Trump has been working to professionalize his campaign, the Twitter post was the latest example of him making remarks many deem offensive. Several weeks ago, he insinuated that a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University could not be impartial in the case because of his Mexican heritage.

Mr. Trump apparently realized the problem with the original Twitter post because he rarely apologizes for his remarks or deletes his posts. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday.

Before the post came down, Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, asked on his personal Twitter account, “Why is there a Star of David?” Other commenters were more blunt:

@finkowska All right. OK. Is this a deliberate show of grotesque anti-semitism or an accidental act of grotesque stupidity?

Mr. Trump regularly touts his close ties to Jewish people, noting that his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism when she married her husband, Jared Kushner. He also has promised to make the security of Israel a top priority if he is elected president.

However, Mr. Trump has frustrated some Jews for initially declining to take a firm stand on the side of Israel when discussing the conflict with the Palestinians. And he angered some last year when he joked about Jews being good with money during a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Mr. Trump has also been criticized for failing to denounce supporters who have harangued Jewish journalists on social media and at gatherings of white nationalists, and for being slow to disavow the support of David Duke, the former Klansman.

FM

Did Hillary Clinton launder millions of dollars while she was secretary of state?

=========================

Our ruling

We rate this claim False.

Trump said Hillary Clinton "laundered money to Bill Clinton through Laureate Education, while Bill Clinton was an honorary chairman of the group." That's a serious of charge of illegal activity.

Actually, the State Department under Clinton never made any direct transfers to Laureate Education. Trump’s source conflates Laureate with a separate charitable organization that received funds from a separate government agency. The International Youth Foundation is a respected nonprofit that has received money from the government since the Bush years, before Clinton joined the State Department.

=========================

Donald Trump assailed Hillary Clinton’s credibility in a rapid response email following her speech on economics on June 21.

Trump claimed that Clinton used her role as secretary of state as a vehicle to funnel government money to her husband.

"As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton through Laureate Education, while Bill Clinton was an honorary chairman of the group," the email said. "Clinton's State Department provided $55.2 million in grants to Laureate Education from 2010-2012. Laureate thanked Bill for providing unbelievable access to the secretary of state by paying him off $16.5 million. This is yet another example of how Clinton treated the State Department as her own personal hedge fund, and sold out the American public to fund her lavish lifestyle."

Laureate Education is a network of more than 80 for-profit educational institutions that operate in 30 countries. Bill Clinton was named Laureate’s honorary chancellor in 2010 and maintained this position until 2015. His role chiefly consisted of advising the company on educational matters and traveling to campuses across the world to speak to young people.

The Trump campaign did not respond to our requests for clarification, but his argument seems to be based off of claims made in Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash. In the book, Schweizer describes what he calls the "Clinton blur" between the activities of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the State Department and associated nonprofits and corporations.

We decided to investigate Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton, who was secretary from 2009 through early 2013, "laundered" money to Laureate to pay off her husband’s salary. We ultimately found that there is zero evidence that Laureate received any money from the federal government while Clinton was at the State Department.

Bill Clinton and Laureate Education

Neither Bill Clinton nor Laureate Education disclosed his compensation as honorary chancellor. However, his tax returns show that Laureate paid him approximately $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014.

We looked to usaspending.gov to find out if Laureate received any funding from the State Department. The site tracks the amount of money given to various organizations through government grants and contracts. According to this database, Laureate did not receive any money from any federal agency while Bill Clinton was in his role, nor while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said in a statement, "The State Department is not aware of any grants provided directly to Laureate Education since 2009, though we are aware of some grants to educational institutions within or affiliated with the Laureate Education network."

The International Youth Foundation

Clinton Cash draws a connection between Laureate Education and the International Youth Foundation, a nonprofit that supports youth employment, entrepreneurship and social innovation across the world. The book notes that Laureate Chairman Douglas Becker is also chairman of the foundation’s board of directors.

The foundation’s profile on usaspending.gov shows that it received approximately $72.6 million in grants between fiscal years 2009 and 2013. Trump gets to his $55.2 million figure by summing the grant money received between 2010 and 2012.

We looked at the grant money given to the International Youth Foundation by the government between 2009 and 2013.

The grant money shown on usaspending.gov appears to have sharply increased while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department, which is the gist of the claim that Trump’s source makes. However, he fails to mention several key facts that undermine the logic of his claim.

First, the International Youth Foundation had been receiving similar amounts of grant money before Hillary Clinton joined the State Department. An open letter by CEO William Reese claims that they negotiated a grant in 2008 under President George W. Bush for $30.2 million for a USAID mission in Jordan. He says that the money from this grant was handed out over several years, overlapping with new grants from President Barack Obama, giving the false impression that funding had sharply increased after Clinton became secretary of state.

We looked at financial records provided by the foundation and confirmed the existence and size of the grants. The records show that approximately $24 million from the grant was dispensed between 2010 and 2012.

Second, almost all of the grants came from USAID, which is a separate agency than the State Department. Is it possible that Hillary Clinton had influence over the USAID grant process while she was secretary of state?

A State Department spokesperson told us the two agencies have separate grant and contract offices, separate procurement offices and their own rules with regards to the grant process.

"State would not have oversight of or be involved in the USAID grant process — grants are let through a competitive process that the agency itself undertakes," said Jennifer Kates, vice president and director of Global Health & HIV Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, who is familiar with the agencies’ grant processes.

Finally, there is no evidence to indicate that the International Youth Foundation is a sister organization of Laureate that could be used to transfer money to the company.

Schweizer points to Douglas Becker to imply that the organizations are linked. However, Becker isn’t paid for his position at the foundation and has no official executive role.

In an interview with PolitiFact, Reese of the International Youth Foundation expanded on their relationship with Laureate. "If we were a subordinate organization we would have to state that in our 990. If we were to transfer money over to Laureate we would have to put that," Reese said. "We’ve received money from Laureate but never given money to them."

Reese stated that the two organizations have worked together on a variety of projects related to global development in the past, such as a relief project for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The foundation’s records show that it’s been receiving between $100,000 and $1.4 million per year from Laureate since 2003, seven years before Bill Clinton joined Laureate.

When we asked about any relationship Bill Clinton had with the International Youth Foundation, Reese said, "No contractual or employment or consulting agreements have been made with President Clinton."

The foundation’s profile on Charitynavigator.org, a site that ranks nonprofits according to transparency and accountability, shows that it’s a respected charity with a score of 94.26 out of 100 possible points. The foundation has worked with various other high-profile partners such as Nokia and Barclays since 1990.

Our ruling

Trump said Hillary Clinton "laundered money to Bill Clinton through Laureate Education, while Bill Clinton was an honorary chairman of the group." That's a serious of charge of illegal activity.

Actually, the State Department under Clinton never made any direct transfers to Laureate Education. Trump’s source conflates Laureate with a separate charitable organization that received funds from a separate government agency. The International Youth Foundation is a respected nonprofit that has received money from the government since the Bush years, before Clinton joined the State Department.

We rate this claim False.

FM

17 times Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it

Donald Trump once claimed to have "the world’s greatest memory," but he seems to suffer bouts of amnesia when it comes to his own statements.

"I never said ____" followed by a charge of media dishonesty is a favorite refrain of the presumptive Republican nominee’s, and it’s something that he’s been doing for years.

For example, in 2014, as he was fighting to prevent wind turbines from being installed near his golf course in Scotland and ruining his views, Trump told a Twitter user he "never said" that "wind farms are a disaster for Scotland." Yet he’s quoted in the Irish Times saying that verbatim.

And just before he jumped into the presidential race, Trump reignited his spat with Jon Stewart, calling the comedian "a wiseguy with no talent" and denying that he ever attacked Stewart for not using his real last name, Leibowitz. But Trump did go after Stewart’s use of a stage name in a series of tweets that many took to be anti-Semitic.

Trump’s forgetfulness during the 2016 cycle has been noted by many, like New Yorker TV critic Emily Nussbaum:

Someone should make a chart of things Trump said, then claimed he didn't say.

That sounded like a good idea to us. Here are 17 times Trump said something and then denied saying it in chronological order.

FM

July 19, 2015: Saying John McCain is not a war hero

One of the first controversies of his 2016 campaign erupted when the brash billionaire said McCain, a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, isn’t a war hero. Facing intense backlash, Trump didn’t exactly deny his comment, but insisted it was taken out of context.

"Four times, I said he is a hero," he said on July 19 on ABC. "But you know … people choose little selective pieces."

We rated his claim Mostly False. Looking at the transcript, Trump literally said McCain is a hero five times, but never without caveats. Once, he added "perhaps, I believe" before conceding the point. Twice, he was interrupted. And the last two times, Trump said, "He is a war hero because he was captured." In other words, Trump also cherry-picked his interview and misquoted himself.

FM

Aug. 9, 2015: Calling women ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals’

Trump’s spat with Fox News host Megyn Kelly began when Kelly brought up various statements Trump made about women at the first GOP presidential debate in August 2015.

"You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals,’ " Kelly said.

Trump interrupted to quip, "only Rosie O’Donnell." A few days later, Trump was more forceful and serious in his denial of Kelly’s premise.

"Well, some of the things that she said, I didn't say, okay?" Trump said on Meet the Press.

That’s False. He’s used those exact words to describe O’Donnell, New York Times columnist Gail Collins, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington, a lawyer who had to pump breast milk and Bette Midler. He also said "it must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees" to female contestant on the Celebrity Apprentice, as Kelly noted.

FM

Oct. 28, 2015: ‘Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator’

At a GOP debate in Colorado, CNBC moderator Becky Quick noted Trump called Florida Sen. Marco Rubio Facebook founder "Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator, because he was in favor of the H-1B visa."

"I never said that. I never said that," Trump responded.

Pants on Fire! These words appear verbatim on Trump’s campaign website: "Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities."

FM

Nov. 11, 2015: Implying China was part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

When asked about the pending trade deal with 12 Pacific Rim nations at a Republican primary debate in Milwaukee, Trump took to bashing China.

"The TPP is horrible deal," Trump said. "It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone." (For the record, Trump got a Pants on Fire for this claim.)

"You know, we might want to point out that China’s not part of this deal," quipped former rival Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. But a day later, Trump denied suggesting China was a signatory.

I never said that China was in the bad TPP trade deal but that China would come in the back door at a later date. @CNN @FoxBusiness

While Trump didn’t literally say China was a TPP partner, his denial doesn’t add up. After all, he didn’t name a single country involved in the deal, and he didn’t say "at a later date," as he claimed in the tweet. Even more perplexing is the notion that TPP partners like Japan and Vietnam would "design" a deal to benefit their regional rival.

FM

Jan. 28, 2016: Asking for Megyn Kelly’s removal from a debate

Trump’s war with Kelly led to him boycotting the Fox News/Google debate in Iowa. An hour before the other candidates took the stage, Trump insisted on CNN his absence was due to a mocking Fox News press release and he "never once asked that (Kelly) be removed."

We rated that claim False. We found several instances of Trump and his campaign telling reporters and tweeting about skipping the debate because of Kelly. He went so far as to say Kelly "should not be allowed" to moderate, that she "should recuse herself," and she "shouldn’t be in the debate."

FM

Feb. 11, 2016: Using a curse word to describe Ted Cruz

Trump denied using "a very bad word" — a synonym for cat — at a rally in Manchester, N.H., and demanded an apology from Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin for suggesting he had done so.

But Halperin has no reason to be sorry. There’s video evidence. An audience member called Trump rival Ted Cruz a slur for a woman. Trump repeated the p---- word after telling fans it was a "terrible" word in mock outrage.

FM

Feb. 28, 2016: "I don’t know anything about David Duke"

After being rebuked left and right for declining to reject former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke’s support, Trump claimed he didn’t know anything about Duke at all.

Pants on Fire! Trump knew enough about Duke to denounce him two days earlier and once in August 2015. In 2000, he criticized Duke’s racism in the New York Times. And in 1991, he told Larry King he hated what votes for Duke, who was running for Louisiana Governor, represented.

FM

March 15, 2016: Paying the legal fees of fans who punch protesters

Facing backlash for encouraging violence against protestors at his rallies, Trump denied that he once promised to pay the legal fees of supporters who roughed up protesters.

"I don’t condone violence," Trump said on ABC. "I never said I was going to pay for fees."

But this is what he told supporters in Iowa a month earlier: "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

FM

March 16, 2016: Punching protestors in general

The next day, Trump denied that he had encouraged violence at all.

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly scolded Trump for it on his show: "You have said some very questionable things like, ‘maybe we punch them in face’ or something like that."

"I didn’t say that, Bill," Trump responded, before sort of admitting it. "All I did was make the statement, ‘I wouldn’t mind doing it.’"

While O’Reilly’s quote wasn’t exact, Trump’s statements on the matter weren’t exactly dispassionate.

"We’re not allowed to punch back any more. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to a guy like that in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks," Trump said at his February Las Vegas rally. "The guards are being very gentle with him. ... I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you."

FM

March 30, 2016: Nuking ISIS

Trump denied being open to using nuclear weapons against ISIS at a town hall in Wisconsin.

"I didn’t say, ‘don’t take it (off the table).’ I said I would be very, very slow and hesitant to pull the trigger," he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

Trump is playing a word game here. A few days earlier, he told Bloomberg he'd "never rule anything out" in order to preserve an element of unpredictability. 

FM

May 4, 2016: Suggesting that Cruz’s ‘father was with Lee Harvey Oswald’

Trump clinched the Republican nomination in early May, but not before linking Cruz’s father to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on Fox and Friends. After being widely panned for his Pants on Fire claim, Trump tried to downplay the context of his remarks.

"All I was doing was referring to a picture that was reported and in a magazine," Trump told ABC the morning after he levied the charge and won the primary.

Actually, Trump launched the attack without referring to the photo, which was later mentioned by Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade. Trump did say "it was reported" before interrupting himself. He then interrupted Kilmeade when the host attempted to provide a source for the claim.

"His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot? And nobody even brings it up. I mean they don’t even talk about that — that was reported — and nobody ever talks about it," Trump said (around the 5:10 mark).

"Right, there’s a picture out there that reportedly shows Rafael Cruz standing with Lee Harvey Oswald," Kilmeade said. "I don’t know if that’s been verified —"

"I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting? It’s horrible," Trump said before Kilmeade pivoted to a question about polling.  

FM

May 17, 2016: Regretting going after Cruz’s wife

During his patch-up interview with Kelly, Trump denied calling his retweet of an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz "a mistake."

"I am not walking it back," he told Kelly. "But I actually didn’t say it that way. I said, I could have done without it."

But he did say it that way, telling the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, "Yeah, it was a mistake. If I had to do again, I wouldn’t have sent it."

FM

May 31, 2016: Referring to some Republicans as ‘losers’

Trump’s usage of the word "loser" is downright idiosyncratic, yet he denied using his signature insult against his fellow party members, except one in particular.

"Why do you refer to some Republicans and conservatives as losers?" a reporter asked at a May press conference (around the 34:40 mark).

"No, no, I didn’t say that. I said (Weekly Standard editor) Bill Kristol is a loser," Trump replied, then took it back. "I didn’t say everybody. Many, but I didn’t say everybody."

Kristol is by no means the only conservative "loser," according to the presumptive GOP nominee. Here are a few mentioned in the Washington Post’s list of Trump-anointed losers: RedState’s Erick Erickson, columnist George Will, strategist Roger Stone, Bush advisor Karl Rove, blogger Michelle Malkin, pollster Frank Luntz, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, columnist Charles Krauthammer, and John McCain.

And here are a few more not on the Post’s list: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Cruz, Scott Walker, primary rivals who pledged to support the nominee but haven’t, Megyn Kelly, Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel, consultant Cheri Jacobus, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, commentator S.E. Cupp, and the Club for Growth.

(Trump’s repertoire of insults is also quite expansive. Here are some more names he’s called conservatives.)

FM

June 2, 2016: Nuclear weapons in Japan

Trump accused Democratic rival Hillary Clinton of telling "such lies about his foreign policy."

"They said I want Japan to nuke, that I want Japan to get nuclear weapons," Trump said at a rally in Sacramento." Give me a break."

Trump’s denial is Mostly False. While he didn’t literally say he wants Japan to obtain nuclear power, he’s come very close to it several times:

"At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea," he said at a CNN town hall in March.

"Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea," he said on Fox News Sunday a month later. "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes

FM

June 12, 2016: Mocking a disabled reporter

Responding to an attack ad, Trump charged Clinton with lying about him mocking a disabled reporter.

Clinton made a false ad about me where I was imitating a reporter GROVELING after he changed his story. I would NEVER mock disabled. Shame!

FM
Last edited by Former Member

June 20, 2016: On guns preventing the Orlando shooting

As Democrats mounted efforts to pass gun control legislation in the wake of the Orlando shooting, Trump brought up the proverbial "good guy with a gun" argument, which goes that mass casualties could have been avoided if one civilian in the club were armed.

Under scrutiny for his comment, Trump insisted he meant armed security, not clubgoers.

When I said that if, within the Orlando club, you had some people with guns, I was obviously talking about additional guards or employees

Obviously, he was not. In an interview on CNN, Trump said armed "people" in general, possibly exercising concealed carry, could have prevented the tragedy, and he ignored a reporter when she pointed out that there was an armed security guard in the club. Here’s the exchange:

Trump: "If you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy you had. If people in that room …"

Reporter: "But there was …"

Trump: "...had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction …"

Reporter: "But Mr. Trump, there was an armed security guard."

Trump: " ...right at him, right at his head, you wouldn't have had the same tragedy that you ended up having. ...But if you had guns in that room, even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waists, where bullets could have flown in the other direction, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of tragedy."

FM

June 23, 2016: On having one of the world’s best memories

To cap it all, Trump ironically can’t remember bragging about his memory as revealed in his deposition for a Trump University lawsuit. Here’s what he said, according to transcript released in late June:

"Q. You’ve stated though, that you have one of the best memories in the world?

A. I don’t know. Did I use that expression?

Q. Yes.

A. Where? Could I see it?

Q. I can play the video of you reporting it.

A. Did I say I have a great memory or one of the best in the world.

Q. "One of the best in the world" is what the reporter quoted you as saying

A. I don’t remember saying that. As good as my memory is, I don’t remember that, but I have a good memory."

Two weeks before the Dec. 10 deposition, Trump was doubling down his Pants on Fire claim about "thousands and thousands of people were cheering" on 9/11.

"I have the world's greatest memory," he told NBC. "It's one thing everyone agrees on."

FM

Hillary Clinton statement on Donald Trump

 
True
Clinton
"Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism."

Hillary Clinton on Monday, June 27th, 2016 in a speech in Cincinnati

FM

Hillary Clinton correct that analysts have called Donald Trump a top global economic risk

"Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism."

Hillary Clinton on Monday, June 27th, 2016 in a speech in Cincinnati

Hillary Clinton, riding a bump in the polls, kept the heat on Donald Trump during a speech in Cincinnati that marked the first time she had campaigned alongside Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the progressive wing of her party.

"Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism," Clinton said during the speech on June 27, 2016.

We don’t take a position on whether Trump actually is one of the top threats facing the global economy. But we thought we’d check to see whether Clinton has solid evidence that professional risk analysts have made that argument.

So is Clinton right about how analysts have rated Trump? Basically, yes.

When we asked the Clinton campaign what she was referring to, they pointed us to the periodic rankings of global risk published by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The Economist Intelligence Unit -- an affiliate of The Economist, the London-based newsweekly -- is a research and analysis firm that supplies clients, including businesses, with information about opportunities and risks around the world.

The firm made headlines in March 2016 when it listed the possibility of a Trump presidency as one of the biggest threats to "companies’ capacity to operate at target profitability." The rankings are based on "qualitative" judgments of a how powerfully an event could affect the world and how likely it is to happen, the firm says.

In its March ratings, the firm rated the risks from a Trump presidency as 12 on a 25-point scale. That ranked Trump sixth among the 10-item list of biggest threats, tied with "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy."

But the Trump threat level increased in the July 2016 rankings. A Trump presidency now ranks as the third-biggest global threat, with an increased score of 16 on the 25-point scale. In the meantime, the risk from jihadi terrorism has remained constant with a score of 12.

In the July ratings, the only higher scores were 20 for "China experiences a hard landing" and, in a tie with Trump, a 16 for "currency volatility and persistent commodity prices weakness."

Specifically, the firm wrote that "although we do not expect Mr. Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a sudden economic downturn." The writeup cited his "hostility" to free trade, his hard line on Muslims, his "militaristic tendencies," his skepticism toward NATO, and his "indifference" to nuclear proliferation in Asia.

The firm had never rated a pending candidacy to be a geopolitical risk to the United States and the world, an official told Politico.

FM

Donald Trump Statement

Full Flop
Trump

On banning assault weapons.

Donald Trump on Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 in as a candidate in 2016 and as a possible hopeful in 2000.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Donald Trump fully flip-flops, lately opposes ban on assault weapons

==============================

Our ruling

Trump supported the assault-weapon ban in 2000. He opposes restrictions now.

We rate this a FULL FLOP.


FULL FLOP-- A major reversal of position; a complete flip-flop.

==============================

Before finishing second to Texan Ted Cruz in Wisconsin’s April 2016 Republican presidential primary, Donald Trump of New York retweeted a supporter’s message stating: "Challenge to all WI gun owners. Vote @realDonaldTrump.The only candidate that will protect your rights!"

That was an opinion; we can't check it. But the declaration didn’t impress Josh Perry, an aide to Sen. Cruz, who responded the day after the primary with tweets characterizing Trump as a flip-flopper on restricting assault weapons.

Cue the Flip-O-Meter. Has Trump flip-flopped on banning assault weapons?

"Remember when you advocated for stripping away my #2A rights?" Perry tweeted about Trump April 6, 2016, referring to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Cruz’s aide earlier posted a tweet saying Trump had said: "I support the ban on assault weapons" and "a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

Asked to elaborate, Perry told us in a Twitter message that he’d drawn Trump’s comments from the businessman’s 2000 book, "The America We Deserve," in which Trump wrote: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The book came out as Trump mulled a possible run for president as a third-party hopeful. At the time, a 1994 congressionally-approved ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons was due to lapse in 2004. Democratic attempts to resurrect the restrictions have not gained traction.

Perry also pointed out a January 2016 news post on TheIntercept.com, which says it’s "dedicated to producing fearless, adversarial journalism." The post contrasted Trump’s support in 2000 for the assault-weapon ban and longer waiting periods with recent Trump proposals presented on his campaign website, including calls for law-abiding Americans to own the "firearm of their choice" and for state-issued concealed-carry permits allowing residents to carry handguns to be valid in every state. On his site, Trump also says members of the military should be able to freely carry weapons on bases and in recruiting stations.

Trump also brings up assault-weapon restrictions, but not in a supportive way, saying: "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons,’ ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines’ to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans."

That policy position showed up on the site in September 2015, according to an ABC News story at the time, which said: "The position on assault weapons represents a departure for Trump from a stance he held about 15 years ago."

Trump’s site includes a section on the criminal background checks that residents who purchase guns at stores must complete. In the section, Trump advocates mental health records getting tied into the system. He’s silent on favoring or opposing slightly longer waiting periods before purchases are allowed though he indicates he doesn’t like the background-check system, saying: "When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today."

In 2016, TheIntercept.com reported, Trump "has vowed to undo President" Barack "Obama’s modest gun executive orders," per Trump’s remarks at a January 2016 New Hampshire stop, and also called for the elimination of school "gun-free zones." In Vermont in January, Trump said: "I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases. My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There's no more gun-free zones." At the time, a Washington Post news story noted Trump had repeatedly said gun-free zones are a magnet for mentally ill shooters and that mass shootings in Paris and California could have been prevented if more citizens were armed to protect themselves and others.

We used the text-search feature offered by Google Books to confirm Trump’s gun statements in his 2000 book. In the book’s brief section on guns, Trump said: "Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions."

Next, Trump wrote, "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

In a March 2016 debate, Trump was asked to speak to his published support for an assault-weapon ban. He replied: "I don’t support it anymore. I do not support the ban on assault" weapons, he said.

We asked Trump’s campaign if he’d flip-flopped and didn’t immediately hear back.

Our ruling

Trump supported the assault-weapon ban in 2000. He opposes restrictions now.

We rate this a FULL FLOP.


FULL FLOP-- A major reversal of position; a complete flip-flop.

FM

Donald Trump and Kids Named In $250M Tax Scam

 
The lawsuit, unsealed Thursday, describes the scheme as simple, telling the judge “there need be no fear of complexity, for there is none.”

Four Donald Trump-licensed real estate developments are at the center of a huge income tax evasion scheme, according to allegations in a lawsuit unsealed Thursday afternoon by a judge in Manhattan.

The presumptive Republican nominee is not personally accused. He is described as a “material witness” in the evasion of taxes on as much as $250 million in income. According to the court papers, that includes $100 million in profits and $65 million in real estate transfer taxes from a Manhattan high rise project bearing his familiar name.

However, his status may change, according to the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, Richard Lerner and Frederick M. Oberlander, citing Trump’s testimony about Felix Sater, a convicted stock swindler at the center of the alleged scheme.

Trump received tens of millions of dollars in fees and partnership interests in one of the four projects, the Trump Soho New York, a luxury high rise in lower Manhattan. His son Donald Junior and his daughter Ivanka also were paid in fees and partnership interests, the lawyers said, and are also material witnesses in the case.

Trump and Sater traveled extensively together and were photographed and interviewed in Denver and Loveland, Colo., Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale and New York. The two Trump children were also with Sater in Moscow, Alan Garten, the Trump Organization general counsel, has said.

Trump has testified about Sater in a Florida lawsuit accusing the two of them of fraud in a failed high-rise project. Trump testified that he had a glancing knowledge of Sater and would not recognize him if he were sitting in the room.

Sater controlled an investment firm named Bayrock, with offices in Trump Tower, and sought to develop branded Trump Tower luxury buildings in Moscow and other cities. Court papers show his salary in 2006 was $7 million, but it alleges that was a pittance compared to his real income.

Sater then moved into the Trump Organization offices. He carried a business card, issued by the Trump Organization, identifying him as a “senior adviser” to Trump.

The tax fraud lawsuit included 212 pages of documents, among them a flow chart that the plantiff claims showed how the scheme worked. The lawsuit alleges the tax fraud scheme as simple, telling the judge “there need be no fear of complexity, for there is none.”

real estate, tax fraud Trump

Handout

The four developments were all handled as partnerships. Partnerships are not taxed and are rarely audited because the profits are supposed to be reported as going to the partners personally. The lawsuit says the profits simply were not reported when Sater and others took their partnership profits and other income from the deals.

The state tax fraud lawsuit is known as a qui tam case in which citizens file as private attorneys general on behalf of the government. In effect Lerner and Oberlander are acting as prosecutors in the alleged tax fraud.

Eric Schneiderman, the New York State attorney general, learned of the case soon after it was filed in state court last August and declined to intervene. His office confirmed that stance Thursday after the lawsuit was unsealed.

The suit says Sater and other defendants owe at least $7 million in New York state income taxes, a sum that would be tripled if they prevail.

If the federal government were to intervene the federal taxes would come to about $35 million.

New York state tax law closely aligns with federal tax law in defining income, deductions and taxes due.

The case was unsealed after Sater filed an action in Israel against a rabbi who says he was cheated in a $40 million stock swindle.  That  was enough to persuade a federal judge to unseal another lawsuit against Sater, Bayrock and others earlier in July. And in turn that disclosure prompted the state Supreme Court (trial court) judge in Manhattan to unseal the tax evasion lawsuit.

Sater secretly pled guilty to the stock swindle in 1998. The $40 million flexed from investors went to him, the Genovese and Gambino crime families and others.

In 1998 Sater pleaded guilty in federal court, but the plea was kept secret. Sater was sentenced in secret in 2009 to probation and a $25,000 fine with no jail time and no requirement to make restitution.

That was an extraordinarily light sentence, especially given Sater’s violent past. In 1991 he admitted to shoving the broken stem of a margarita glass into a man’s face and was sentenced to two years.

Court papers, testimony by Trump and a book by one of Sater’s confederatesThe Scorpion and the Frog, “The True Story of One Man's Fraudulent Rise and Fall on the Wall Street of the Nineties”—all tell how after his arrest Sater became an operative for the Central Intelligence Agency, supposedly buying missiles on their way to terrorists, which may explain the light sentence.

As to Trump, every president starting with Richard Nixon and major party candidate since has made public some or all of their tax returns. He has not, even as Hillary Clinton has released her complete tax returns going back more than three decades.

Trump has explained his refusal to make his income tax returns public by claiming that the ones he has filed for 2012 and since are under routine audit. Mark Everson, a former commissioner of Internal Revenue has said there is no reason to hold the returns back, even assuming they are being audited.

He has offered no explanation for not releasing his returns for 2011 and earlier, years on which he has said the audits are closed.

Documents made public by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission show that despite living a lavish lifestyle, Trump did not pay income taxes in 1978, 1979, 1992 and 1994. He also paid no income taxes in 1984, by far his most lucrative year in his career to that point, according to state and city tax tribunal proceedings I reported on previously.

FM

Donald Trump’s Deals Rely on Being Creative With the Truth

Donald J. Trump at a campaign event this month in Virginia. A survey of his four decades of wheeling and dealing reveals an operatic record of dissembling and deception. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times

There was the time Donald J. Trump told Larry King that he had been paid more than $1 million to give a speech about his business acumen when in fact he was paid $400,000. Or the time he sought a bank loan claiming a net worth of $3.5 billion in 2004, four times as much as what the bank found when it checked his math. Or the time he boasted that membership to Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, N.Y., cost $300,000 when the actual initiation fee was $200,000. Or the time he bragged on CNBC about his new Trump International Hotel and Tower in Las Vegas, claiming, “We have 1,282 units, and they sold out in less than a week.” As Mr. Trump knew, more than 300 units had not been sold.

Confronted in a court case about this last untruth, Mr. Trump was anything but chagrined. “I’m talking to a television station,” he said. “We do want to put the best spin on the property.”

As Mr. Trump prepares to claim the Republican nomination for president this week, he and his supporters are sure to laud his main calling card — his long, operatic record as a swaggering business tycoon. And without question, there will be successes aplenty to highlight, from his gleaming golden high-rises to his well-regarded golf resorts, hit TV shows and best-selling books.
 

But a survey of Mr. Trump’s four decades of wheeling and dealing also reveals an equally operatic record of dissembling and deception, some of it unabashedly confirmed by Mr. Trump himself, who nearly 30 years ago first extolled the business advantages of “truthful hyperbole.” Indeed, based on the mountain of court records churned out over the span of Mr. Trump’s career, it is hard to find a project he touched that did not produce allegations of broken promises, blatant lies or outright fraud.

Under the intense scrutiny of a presidential election, many of those allegations have already become familiar campaign fodder: the Trump University students and Trump condo buyers who say they were fleeced; the public servants from New Jersey to Scotland who now say they rue the zoning approvals, licenses or tax breaks they gave based on Mr. Trump’s promises; the small-time contractors who say Mr. Trump concocted complaints about their work to avoid paying them; the infuriated business partners who say Mr. Trump concealed profits or ignored contractual obligations; the business journalists and stock analysts who say Mr. Trump smeared them for critical coverage.

Taken as a whole, though, an examination of Mr. Trump’s business career reveals persistent patterns in the way Mr. Trump bends or breaks the truth — patterns that may already feel familiar to those watching his campaign.

First and foremost is Mr. Trump’s tendency toward the self-aggrandizing fib — as if it were not impressive enough to be paid $400,000 for a speech. What also emerges is a nearly reflexive habit of telling his target audience precisely what he thinks it wants to hear — such as promising Trump University students they will learn all his real estate secrets from his “handpicked” instructors. And finally, there is the pattern already deeply familiar to his political opponents — making spurious claims against adversaries under Mr. Trump’s oft-stated theory that the best defense is a scorched-earth offense.

Equally striking is his Houdiniesque ability to wiggle away from all but the most skilled and determined efforts to corner him in an apparent lie. In interviews, lawyers who have tangled with Mr. Trump in court cases are sometimes reduced to sputtering, astonished rage, calling him “borderline pathological” and “the Michelangelo of deception” as they attempt to describe the ease with which Mr. Trump weaves his own versions of reality.

“He’s a bully, and bullies aren’t known for their veracity,” said Richard C. Seltzer, a retired senior partner at the law firm Kaye Scholer who confronted Mr. Trump in three real estate lawsuits.

In a telephone interview on Friday, Mr. Trump defended his integrity as a businessman — “I shoot very straight” — and argued that those who accuse him of acting in bad faith are often the same people he has outmaneuvered in deals.

“What, you’re going to quote people that I’ve beat? Are you going to quote people that I out-dealt?” he asked, adding, “I’ll give you hundreds of names of people that have dealt with me that say I’m very honest.”

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is already hard at work making the case that Mr. Trump’s truth-challenged business record is a harbinger of how he would mislead from the Oval Office. Her campaign has even put up a none-too-subtle website: www.artofthesteal.biz.

Mr. Trump’s business record may help explain why various fact-checkers have barely been able to keep pace with his false claims on the campaign trail. PolitiFact has labeled 34 of Mr. Trump’s assertions “Pants on Fire” lies. As of July 1, The Washington Post had fact-checked 46 statements by Mr. Trump. It gave 70 percent of them its worst rating, four Pinocchios — a record so abysmal that the newspaper recently compiled a video of what it called “Donald Trump’s most outrageous four-Pinocchio claims.”

The taxonomy of Mr. Trump’s business deceptions has been the subject of legal and journalistic scrutiny for decades. A Fortune magazine article from 2000 memorably described Mr. Trump’s “astonishing ability to prevaricate” this way: “But when Trump says he owns 10 percent of the Plaza Hotel, understand that what he actually means is that he has the right to 10 percent of the profit if it’s ever sold. When he says he’s building a ‘90-story building’ next to the U.N., he means a 72-story building that has extra-high ceilings. And when he says his casino company is the ‘largest employer in the state of New Jersey,’ he actually means to say it is the eighth largest.”

The casino magnate Steve Wynn, a sometimes friend and sometimes foe of Mr. Trump’s, took up the subject of Mr. Trump’s honesty in an interview with New York magazine. “His statements to people like you, whether they concern us and our projects or our motivations or his own reality or his own future or his own present you have seen over the years have no relation to truth or fact,” Mr. Wynn said.

== To be Continued ==

FM

== Continued ==

Mr. Trump in 2005 at the ribbon-cutting ceremony of Trump International Hotel and Tower in Las Vegas. He exaggerated about the number of units that sold in a week. Credit Ethan Miller/Getty Images

‘Truthful Hyperbole’

Some of the earliest documented examples of Mr. Trump’s deceptive business tactics come from none other than Mr. Trump, who in books and in interviews sometimes seems to delight in describing the brazen bluffs and well-timed trickery he used to claw his way to the upper echelons of New York City’s cutthroat real estate world.

“You have to understand where I was coming from,” Mr. Trump wrote in his 1987 best-seller, “The Art of the Deal.” “While there are certainly honorable people in the real estate business, I was more accustomed to the sort of people with whom you don’t want to waste the effort of a handshake because you know it’s meaningless.”

Mr. Trump was particularly proud of a stratagem he employed in 1982, when he was trying to entice Holiday Inn to invest in a casino he was building in Atlantic City, N.J. The board of directors decided to visit Atlantic City, which worried Mr. Trump because he had precious little actual construction to show off. So Mr. Trump ordered his construction supervisor to cram every bulldozer and dump truck he could find into the nearly vacant construction site.

“What the bulldozers and dump trucks did wasn’t important, I said, so long as they did a lot of it. If they got some actual work accomplished, all the better, but if necessary, he should have the bulldozers dig up dirt from one side of the site and dump it on the other.”

A week later, when Mr. Trump escorted the Holiday Inn executives to the site, one board member wanted to know why a worker was filling a hole he had just dug. “This was difficult for me to answer, but fortunately, this board member was more curious than he was skeptical,” Mr. Trump wrote, boasting that weeks later Holiday Inn agreed to invest in his casino.

“That’s called ‘business,’” Mr. Trump said on Friday of the episode.

In court cases against Mr. Trump — USA Today counted 3,500 lawsuits involving Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump estimates he has testified more than 100 times — plaintiffs’ lawyers frequently return to the same two paragraphs from “The Art of the Deal.”

“I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.”

In depositions, lawyers have repeatedly probed for the limits of Mr. Trump’s “truthful hyperbole,” or, as one lawyer framed it, the distinction Mr. Trump makes between “innocent exaggeration” and “guilty exaggeration.”

The now-defunct Trump University has left a long trail of customers saying that they were defrauded. Credit Thos Robinson/Getty Images

For example, in the now-infamous Trump University litigation, Mr. Trump was asked in a deposition about a script that had been prepared for Trump University instructors. According to the script, the instructors were supposed to tell their students the following: “I remember one time Mr. Trump said to us over dinner, he said, ‘Real estate is the only market that, when there’s a sale going on, people run from the store.’ You don’t want to run from the store.”

No such dinners ever took place, Mr. Trump acknowledged. In fact, Mr. Trump struggled to identify a single one of the instructors he claimed to have handpicked, even after he was shown their photographs. Nonetheless, Mr. Trump was not bothered by the script’s false insinuation of real estate secrets shared over chummy dinners. Asked if this example constituted “innocent exaggeration,” Mr. Trump replied, “Yes, I’d say that’s an innocent exaggeration.”

On Friday, Mr. Trump argued that the script might fall under the legal concept of “puffery” — which many legal dictionaries define as an exaggeration or statement that “no reasonable person” would take as factual. And in any event, he continued, the true sinners in the Trump University case are the students who sued him even after giving rave reviews in their written evaluations of the seminars. “I think that’s dishonest,” he said.

Mr. Trump has been repeatedly accused of bringing false legal claims to avoid paying debts and evade contractual obligations. As far back as 1983, a New York City housing court judge ruled that Mr. Trump filed a “spurious” lawsuit to harass a tenant into vacating a Trump building.

Then there was the case Mr. Trump brought against Barbara Corcoran, the real estate broker best known for her appearances on “Shark Tank.” In the mid-1990s, Mr. Trump owed millions of dollars to Ms. Corcoran for helping him secure financing for a development. But when New York magazine published a cover story about the troubled project — “Trump’s Near-Death Experience” — Mr. Trump sued Ms. Corcoran, accusing her and her associates of sharing damaging information with the magazine and thus violating a confidentiality agreement. He refused to pay her the millions he owed, claiming her breach had gravely damaged his business.

At trial, Mr. Trump was unable to produce a single document showing harm to his business. But his certitude never wavered, even after Ms. Corcoran’s lawyer, Mr. Seltzer, confronted him with article after article in which Mr. Trump himself had discussed with reporters much of the same “confidential” information he accused Ms. Corcoran’s team of divulging.

“There is something very belligerent about the way he presents facts, as if he thinks nobody will have the balls to stand up to him,” Mr. Seltzer said in an interview. (In dismissing Mr. Trump’s suit against Ms. Corcoran, the judge said the only damages he could identify were to Mr. Trump’s “bruised ego.”)

== To be Continued ==

FM

== Continued ==

The Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County. Mr. Trump embellished the cost of a membership. Credit Mike Segar/Reuters

Well-Timed Memory Lapses

In Friday’s interview, Mr. Trump denied filing frivolous court cases, insisting, “I’ve won a massive majority of the litigation I’ve been involved in.” He pointed to the USA Today survey of his 3,500 legal cases. Although the newspaper could not determine who had prevailed in the vast majority of the cases, it did find Mr. Trump the clear winner in 450 suits and the clear loser in 38.

And, indeed, for all of the litigation Mr. Trump has attracted or spawned, for all of the times he has been accused of ruinous dishonesty, the legal and regulatory record is surprisingly bare of official findings by judges, juries or regulators that Mr. Trump engaged in perjury or improper deception or actual fraud.

A rare exception came after Mr. Trump decided to demolish a department store to make way for his Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan. Mr. Trump’s demolition contractor hired about 200 unauthorized Polish laborers, paying them as little as $4 an hour to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. The case ended up in federal court after some workers were shortchanged even these wages.

Mr. Trump protested that he knew nothing about the use of unauthorized workers — even though workers testified that they saw him visiting the site and some witnesses said that Mr. Trump and the executive he assigned to oversee the demolition were well aware of what was going on. In 1991, a federal judge, Charles E. Stewart Jr., ruled that despite Mr. Trump’s denials, there was “strong evidence” that he and his subordinates and his contractor had conspired to hire the Polish workers and deprive them of employment benefits. He awarded them $325,415 in damages.

But in case after case, Mr. Trump has displayed a special talent for turning what should be cold hard facts into semantic mush. Perhaps the most famous example of this skill came when Mr. Trump was asked under oath a seemingly straightforward question: Had he ever lied about his net worth? Mr. Trump responded, “My net worth fluctuates and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”

So, he explained in a deposition, when he said membership costs $300,000 to his Westchester golf club, that included the $200,000 initiation fee plus every cent he guessed that a member might spend on annual dues over the next 20 or 30 years. In other words, “The way I say it is more accurate.” And when he told Larry King he was paid more than $1 million for a speech, it was not his fault if viewers failed to realize he was including not just his $400,000 speaking fee but also the hundreds of thousands of dollars he assumed must have been spent promoting his appearance.

Part of what makes Mr. Trump such an elusive target is that his paper trail is often minimal. Mr. Trump has repeatedly testified that he does not use computers. He says he also throws away his day planner each month, and just last year he testified that he did not own a smartphone. “Unlike Hillary Clinton, I’m not a big email fan,” he said, leaving open the question of how he posts to Twitter.

Mr. Trump is also adept at deflecting blame to his staff. In two of his books, Mr. Trump made the startling and, as it turned out, bogus claim that he had once performed the remarkable feat of climbing out from under more than $9 billion in debt. Mr. Trump blamed his ghostwriter for the mistake. Asked if he reads his books before publication, Mr. Trump said, “I read it as quickly as I can because of time constraints.”

Mr. Trump is also the beneficiary of miraculously well-timed memory lapses. In suit after suit, the man who claims to possess one of world’s best memories suddenly seems to have chronic memory loss when asked about critical facts or events.

Such was the case when Mr. Trump filed a libel lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien, the author of “TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald.” Among other things, Mr. Trump asserted that “TrumpNation” cost him a “deal made in heaven” with a group of Italian investors, men he had met and who were on the brink of signing a business partnership that would have made him hundreds of millions of dollars. Their names? He could not recall. “TrumpNation” also cost him a hotel deal with Russian investors, he said. He could not remember their names, either. He was certain the book also ruined a deal with Turkish investors. Again, he could not recall any names. Polish investors also got cold feet after they read Mr. O’Brien’s book. Their names escaped him, too. The book also scared off investors from Ukraine. Alas, he could not think of their names either.

Mr. Trump’s lawsuit was dismissed.

FM

Rudy Giuliani wrongly says Hillary Clinton is for open borders

By Amy Sherman , http://www.politifact.com/flor...ary-clinton-open-bo/

==============================

Our ruling

Giuliani said, "Hillary Clinton is for open borders."

We rate this claim False.

==============================

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Donald Trump’s plan to secure the border and said that Hillary Clinton would take the opposite approach.

"You know Donald Trump will secure our borders," Giuliani said at the Republican convention July 18. "His opponent has had her chance to do this, and she has failed. Hillary Clinton is for open borders."

Claiming that Clinton would create "open borders" suggests she would allow undocumented immigrants to travel freely or with very few restrictions between two countries.

That’s not what Clinton has proposed. Clinton supported legislation in 2013 that included a path to citizenship (with conditions) and heightened border security.

However, some experts argue that "open borders" doesn't necessarily mean no enforcement at all, but rather making it far easier for undocumented immigrants to stay here. Clinton does want to make it easier for many undocumented immigrants, but that’s not the same as getting rid of enforcement or allowing people to enter and leave the United States without border control.

We were unable to locate a Giuliani spokesperson Monday night.

Clinton’s proposal

Clinton and Trump have taken vastly different approaches on immigration, although they have both said they favor secure borders.

During this campaign, Clinton has called for addressing immigration laws including a path to citizenship within her first 100 days. But she has also called for protecting borders and deporting criminals or those who pose threats.

"We need to secure our borders. I’m for it, I voted for it, I believe in it, and we also need to deal with the families, the workers who are here, who have made contributions, and their children," she said in November. "We can do more to secure our border, and we should do more to deal with the 11 or 12 million people who are here, get them out of the shadows."

This is pretty consistent with her view as a New York senator and secretary of state.

In her 2014 book Hard Choices, Clinton praised the 2013 immigration bill co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators including Marco Rubio of Florida. That bill included billions for border enforcement over a decade for new surveillance equipment and fencing along the Mexican border, as well as adding 20,000 border agents. That bill passed the Senate but never reached a vote in the House.

Clinton’s immigration platform does not amount to open borders, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told PolitiFact Florida when we fact-checked a similar claim by Trump that we rated False.

Open borders existed before 1875, when there were no federal restrictions on emigrating to the country, he said. The United States had immigration restrictions from 1875 to 1924 without a border patrol, which was created in 1924.

It’s wrong to conflate "open borders" with anything less than perfect enforcement of immigration laws, he said. It’s also wrong to "claim Clinton is for open borders while she has also supported massive increases in border security to better enforce our restrictive immigration laws."

But Clinton has said she wants to limit deportations to violent criminals, not deport children and end raids and round-ups and go further than President Barack Obama for DREAMers and their parents if legally possible — although that is in legal limbo after the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked. That greatly expands who could avoid deportation in a Clinton White House.

Those policies amount to less enforcement to supporters of reduced immigration, including Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, and Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA.

Beck has told PolitiFact that the term "open borders" is imprecise. However, if undocumented immigrants can "stay as long as you don’t commit a violent crime, that is pretty close to open borders. You don’t have to give amnesty -- you can just not have a threat of deportation, and it allows people to stay."

Our ruling

Giuliani said, "Hillary Clinton is for open borders."

Clinton supported a 2013 bill that would have invested billions in border security in addition to a path to citizenship. As a presidential candidate she has called for securing the border and targeting deportation to criminals and those who pose security threats. While her plan would make it easier for many undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation, that’s not the same as allowing a free-for-all at the border and ending enforcement.

We rate this claim False.

FM

Trump says, without proof, that he recommended Ohio for GOP convention

=================================

Our ruling

The selection of Cleveland was conducted by the party in 2014, when it wasn’t known who would ultimately win the nomination.

We rate Trump’s statement False.

=================================

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump enters the stage to introduce his wife Melania on the first day of the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. (Getty)

On the opening night of the Republican convention, Donald Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly he was grateful it was held in Cleveland.

"I wanted it to be here, and we had lots of choices," Trump said. "I wanted it to be in Ohio. I recommended Ohio. And people fought very hard that it be in Ohio. It's a tremendous economic development event, and you look at the way it's going so far, it's very impressive. I wanted it be here, the Republicans wanted it to be here."

We wondered, did Trump get involved in picking Cleveland?

If he did, we couldn’t find a trace of it.

We asked the Trump campaign for details, and we’re still waiting to hear back.

Trump’s statement seems odd because of the timing.

The Republican National Committee named a site selection committee in January 2014. Cities submitted proposals to show that they had a big enough venue, enough hotel rooms, the organizational heft to pull all the pieces together, and activities for the delegates.

By April, the committee had winnowed its choices down to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, and Las Vegas.

On July 8, 2014, the Republican National Committee announced it had picked Cleveland.

At the time, Trump not only wasn’t a candidate, he didn’t seem to be a likely candidate. An Associated Press rundown of the potential contenders didn’t include Trump, but it did have Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker.

With the exception of Paul Ryan, everyone on the list ultimately threw his hat into the ring.

We looked to see if Trump had any reaction after Cleveland was picked, but there was no sign of him in the convention coverage. Instead, all we found were articles about the closure of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City. Trump said more closures might be on the way.

We spoke to Steve Duprey, a member of the site selection committee, and he told us he doesn’t recall Trump’s name coming up in any meeting.

"It’s possible he said something to somebody, but I never heard of it," Duprey said.

We did not hear back from the committee chair.

A search of the Nexis database of newspapers, transcripts and wire reports going back long before Cleveland was announced produced no statement from Trump. His name and the Republican convention didn’t appear together in the first half of 2014.

Our ruling

Trump said he liked having the convention in Cleveland and that he had recommended Ohio. It’s possible that he put in a good word for either Cleveland or Cincinnati (both are in Ohio), but there’s no record of him saying anything about either one. He was not a candidate when Cleveland was picked in 2014, and he made no public statement at the time.

The Trump campaign hasn’t published any evidence of an early recommendation, nor could we find any in a Nexis search. Plus, a member of the site selection committee has no recollection of Trump having voiced a preference.

The selection of Cleveland was conducted by the party in 2014, when it wasn’t known who would ultimately win the nomination.

We rate Trump’s statement False.

=====================

About this statement:

Published: Monday, July 18th, 2016 at 11:57 p.m.

Researched by: Jon Greenberg

Edited by: Bill Adair

Subjects: Elections

FM
False
Pence
Says Hillary Clinton "took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire" during the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Mike Pence on Tuesday, July 12th, 2016 in a speech at a Trump rally

FM

Pence falsely says Clinton didn't 'send help' during Benghazi attack

================================

Our ruling

Pence claimed that Clinton "took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire."

In fact, it wasn’t Clinton’s responsibility to send troops to the scene — the military chain of command took that responsibility. The Defense Department attempted to send help to the scene, but was unable to reach Benghazi before the deaths occurred.

Pence implied that Clinton dawdled before sending help to Americans in danger. That is not accurate.

We rate this claim False.

================================

Vice presidential nominees are often expected to act as attack dogs on a campaign ticket. Maybe Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was warming up for the role at a rally for Donald Trump in Indiana on July 12.

Pence rattled off a series of reasons Hillary Clinton was not fit for the presidency. One of them caught our attention, a claim about Benghazi, the Libyan city where a 2012 terrorist attack left four Americans dead.

"We don't need a president that took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire and after four brave Americans fell said ‘what difference, at this point, does it make.’ Anyone who did that, anyone who said that, should be disqualified from ever being commander in chief of the armed forces," Pence said.

President Barack Obama’s administration has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny during, before and after that attack, and much of that has been directed at Clinton.

Several investigations have found, however, that no action by Clinton -- or anybody in the administration -- could have moved additional forces to Benghazi before the last American deaths.

And if it were possible, Clinton was not responsible for sending help. That fell to military officials.

The Benghazi timeline

The attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi began at 9:40 p.m., Benghazi time. It took until after 10 a.m. the next morning for the last plane evacuating Americans to leave Benghazi — the time from the initial attack to the final evacuation is Pence’s "13 hours." (For a more detailed timeline, see this document issued by the House’s select committee on Benghazi or our fact-check of a claim about delays in the military’s response.)

At an 11 p.m. meeting (5 p.m. Washington time), President Barack Obama directed military officials to "do everything possible" to save lives in Benghazi. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified that he then ordered forces around the Mediterranean to move toward Libya. Clinton’s department was ultimately responsible for the security setup at the Benghazi mission, but at this point it was the military, under the Defense Department and, ultimately, the president, that was moving forces toward Libya.

None of the forces ordered to prepare to deploy to Benghazi ever reached the city in the aftermath of the attack. Eventually, it was decided that the Americans in Benghazi would evacuate to Tripoli, Libya's capital, and forces that would have gone to Benghazi were directed there, Libya’s capital, where they were being evacuated to. The CIA station chief in Tripoli — as opposed to anyone in Washington — dispatched a team to work with local militia groups to extract the Americans in Benghazi.

Clinton was active throughout the 13-hour period. She testified that she called Libya’s president to see if friendly forces could be dispatched to help the Americans in Benghazi. She also spoke with the embassy in Tripoli and then-CIA director David Petraeus.

There have been eight congressional investigations of Benghazi so far, most of which were run by Republicans. Several of their reports criticized Clinton and her State Department for the security setup in Benghazi, for their part in the administration messaging after the attack, and for not holding themselves accountable afterward.

But they generally criticized the Defense Department or other parts of the administration, not Clinton or the State Department, for delays in deploying military assets the night of the attack. When Congressman Mike Pompeo asked Clinton, "Why was heaven and earth not moved at the initial sound of guns," in terms of sending help, Clinton told him to ask the Defense Department.

The House select committee on Benghazi concluded: "The decisions made earlier in the year by senior State Department officials to maintain a presence in Benghazi without adequate security forces and an inadequately fortified Mission compound contributed to what amounted to a worst case scenario of circumstances that would test the military’s preparedness and ability to respond.

"Nevertheless, the Defense Department did not pass the test."

The committee went on to question why it took so long for orders from Obama and Panetta to translate into action on the ground.

The committee’s final report leaves open the possibility that the State Department might have further impeded the speed of reaction to Benghazi.

"Whether this failure is shouldered by (the Defense Department) alone, or rests in part on decisions made by the State Department in Washington D.C. or with the White House... is one of the lingering questions about Benghazi," the report reads. This brings up the possibility that the State Department delayed help, but that wasn’t Pence’s claim.

And, based on the generally accepted timeline of the attack, its appears likely the delay ended up being immaterial.  Different Republican-led congressional investigations have concluded that additional forces could not have reached Benghazi in time to matter. Even if Clinton was responsible for the response to the attack, it's not clear what she could have done to overcome what military officials called "the tyranny of time and distance."

Our ruling

Pence claimed that Clinton "took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire."

In fact, it wasn’t Clinton’s responsibility to send troops to the scene — the military chain of command took that responsibility. The Defense Department attempted to send help to the scene, but was unable to reach Benghazi before the deaths occurred.

Pence implied that Clinton dawdled before sending help to Americans in danger. That is not accurate.

We rate this claim False.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Donald Trump Jr. wrong that Hillary Clinton is proposing to destroy Medicare

============================

Our ruling

Donald Trump Jr. said Clinton is proposing "destroying Medicare for seniors."

Clinton is certainly not proposing that in a literal sense, and experts we contacted agreed that her actual policy proposals -- especially making Medicare an option for those between 55 and 65 -- were ambitious but were hardly a dagger at the heart of the program.

We rate the claim False.

============================

Speaking at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump Jr. touted his father, the newly anointed GOP presidential nominee, as someone who would be able to do a better job on health care than his rival, Hillary Clinton.

He said his father would be "a president who will repeal and replace Obamacare without leaving our most vulnerable citizens without health care, and who will do it without destroying Medicare for seniors, as Hillary Clinton has proposed."

Given how popular the single-payer health care program for seniors is, it was pretty obvious to us that Clinton wouldn’t have put the proposal "destroy Medicare" on the issues page of her website. (We were right on that one.)

Still, we wondered whether there is any plausible interpretation of her actual Medicare policy proposals in which they could end up "destroying Medicare for seniors." We didn’t hear back from the Trump campaign about what Donald Trump Jr. meant, but we took a look for ourselves.

First, let’s review Clinton’s agenda for Medicare.

On her issues page, the word "Medicare" comes up twice. First, Clinton said she would "explore cost-effective ways to make more health care providers eligible for telehealth reimbursement under Medicare and other programs."

That’s a fairly limited program, as well as relatively non-controversial and unlikely -- even in a worst-case scenario -- to endanger the program’s future, said Sherry Glied, a health policy specialist at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

The second reference to Medicare on Clinton’s issue page is more sweeping -- to "support letting people over 55 years old buy into Medicare."

Currently, you need to be 65 to get coverage under Medicare. Under Clinton’s proposal, people up to 10 years younger than that could sign up for the program if they wanted to.

Health care experts told PolitiFact that this proposal comes with challenges, but that even if worst came to worst, the idea seems unlikely to jeopardize the program’s continued existence for its core membership of those 65 and older.

"There have been lots of proposals of this type in past and not much concern about the effects on traditional Medicare, assuming premiums are set correctly," Glied said. She said the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last analyzed a proposal of this sort in December 2008 and "raised no concerns about effects on the program as a whole."

A. Bowen Garrett, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s health policy center, agreed that the eventual fine print in Clinton’s proposal is going to matter, because in any program that’s optional, there’s a risk that it could attract a relatively small and less healthy pool of beneficiaries who could force premiums upward.

Still, Garrett said, "I do not see why that would necessarily harm the program" in the way Donald Trump Jr. meant it.

Indeed, in the fight to craft the Democratic platform, Clinton’s allies managed to defeat a more sweeping proposal backed by Bernie Sanders to cover all Americans through a Medicare-style single-payer system.

After the proposal was defeated, several experts -- including some who are sympathetic to the idea of expanding health insurance coverage --  told Kaiser Health News that the Sanders approach that Clinton defeated was disruptive enough to have actually put the program at risk.

"It’s hard to be nimble" when a system gets that big, Ezekiel Emanuel, who advised Obama on crafting his signature health care law, told the publication. "No organization in the world does anything for 300 million people and does it efficiently."

Princeton University health policy expert Paul Starr, a onetime adviser to President Bill Clinton, concurred that "to try to do it in one fell swoop would be massively disruptive," according to Kaiser Health News.

Other health care specialists told PolitiFact that Donald Trump Jr.’s statement is vastly overheated.

"There is nothing in her proposals that would destroy Medicare or harm present or future beneficiaries," said John Rother, the president and CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care and the former executive vice president for policy at AARP -- the seniors’ group that would presumably be at most direct risk if Medicare collapsed. Clinton is urging "changes, yes, quite a few. But nothing that would harm the program or those it serves."

Rena M. Conti, a health policy specialist at the University of Chicago, agreed.

"Nothing I am aware her saying to date would imply that she aims to dismantle the current Medicare program or take away benefits that seniors currently enjoy or bankrupt the trust fund that is used to finance some current Medicare benefits for seniors," she said.

Our ruling

Donald Trump Jr. said Clinton is proposing "destroying Medicare for seniors."

Clinton is certainly not proposing that in a literal sense, and experts we contacted agreed that her actual policy proposals -- especially making Medicare an option for those between 55 and 65 -- were ambitious but were hardly a dagger at the heart of the program.

We rate the claim False.

FM

Paul Manafort False Statement on Hillary Clinton Camp

 
False
Manafort
"The Clinton camp was the first to get it out there and try to say there was something untoward about the speech that Melania Trump gave."

Paul Manafort on Tuesday, July 19th, 2016 in a press conference

FM

Trump campaign chair pins Melania plagiarism story on Hillary Clinton's campaign

==================================

Our ruling

Manafort said, "The Clinton camp was the first to get it out there and try to say there was something untoward about the speech that Melania Trump gave."

The Clinton campaign has barely reacted to the claims that Melania Trump took some phrases from a 2008 Michelle Obama speech. A Twitter user in Los Angeles, who has no Clinton campaign ties, was the first to draw attention to the similarities between the two speeches.

We rate Manafort's claim False.

==================================

Donald Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort said the most-covered story from the first night of the 2016 Republican National Convention was fed to the press by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Trump’s wife, Melania, was the headline speaker Monday night in Cleveland, but it appears she borrowed some words from a 2008 speech by Michelle Obama. Read our comparison of the two speeches here.

"There’s a political tint to this whole issue," Manafort said in a televised statement July 19. "The Clinton camp was the first to get it out there and try to say there was something untoward about the speech that Melania Trump gave. It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person."

Given the extensive media coverage of this story, we were curious about Manafort’s claim that the Clinton campaign planted it.

As it turns out, the Clinton campaign was not the first to note similarities between the Trump and Obama speeches. It was Jarrett Hill, a Los Angeles-based Twitter user who describes himself as an interior designer and a journalist.

"Melania must’ve liked Michelle Obama’s 2008 Convention speech, since she plagiarized it," Hill tweeted at 10:40 p.m. Monday night.

Melania must’ve liked Michelle Obama’s 2008 Convention speech, since she plagiarized it.

Hill told PolitiFact that he was watching Trump’s speech, and a couple of the lines made him think, "Whoa, that’s weird. I heard that before." He then tweeted at some NBC journalists to draw their attention to the similarities to Obama’s speech, and the story blew up.

Hill said he has "literally no ties to the Clinton campaign," though he is a registered Democrat. He has not heard from anyone involved with the Clinton campaign before or since he uncovered the potential plagiarism.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri denied that it is the story’s source in a tweet.

Nice try, not true. @PaulManafort, blaming Hillary Clinton isn't the answer for ever Trump campaign problem. https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/755400415508893696 

 

In fact, the Clinton campaign has not issued any statement or public response to the story, other than the tweet from Palmieri's personal account. One arm, Correct the Record, retweeted one of Hill’s tweets. A few individual campaign staffers have tweeted about it, too.

But this was all after Hill made the original connection.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz if the Democratic Party or Clinton campaign planted the attack on Melania Trump.

Wasserman Schultz did not reply with a flat "no," but she said, "the Trump Organization, whether it's Paul Manafort or anyone, all the way up to Donald Trump himself, anytime they are caught red-handed engaging in distortions, inaccuracies, a fact pattern that is clearly not accurate, they blame someone else. And so they should be prepared to be held accountable for the content of anything delivered from the stage of the Republican National Convention."

We tried to reach Donald Trump’s campaign multiple times but did not hear back.

Our ruling

Manafort said, "The Clinton camp was the first to get it out there and try to say there was something untoward about the speech that Melania Trump gave."

The Clinton campaign has barely reacted to the claims that Melania Trump took some phrases from a 2008 Michelle Obama speech. A Twitter user in Los Angeles, who has no Clinton campaign ties, was the first to draw attention to the similarities between the two speeches.

We rate Manafort's claim False.

FM

Donald Trump False Statement on Hillary Clinton

False
Trump
Says Hillary Clinton "wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."

Donald Trump on Thursday, July 21st, 2016 in a speech at the Republican national convention

FM

Despite new adverb, Trump's claim about Clinton wanting to 'abolish' 2nd Amendment is still False

Our ruling

Trump said, "My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."

The addition of the word essentially doesn’t change the accuracy of this claim. We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. The bulk of her comments suggest the opposite: She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership.

Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, speaks during the final day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Thursday, July 21, 2016. (AP)

In officially accepting the GOP presidential nomination, Donald Trump tried to finesse one of his favorite but false attacks on the campaign trail:

"My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment,"  Trump said July 21 in Cleveland.

It’s nice that Trump added the word "essentially," but the charge is still not without faults.

When we last looked at the claim, we found no evidence that Clinton has ever said she wants to repeal or abolish the Second Amendment. She has called for stronger regulations, but continuously affirms her support for the right to bear arms.

However, gun rights advocates argue that it’s reasonable to infer from a few comments that she wants to roll back the Second Amendment as it’s currently interpreted.

Straight shooting on the campaign trail

In both her 2008 and 2016 White House bids, Clinton has called for more gun control all the while saying she "believes in the Second Amendment."

Here are a few examples of comments she’s made:

• January 2008, Democratic presidential debate: "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."

• August 2015, in response to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia: "We are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths."

• January 2016, on Twitter: "Nobody's attacking the Second Amendment. We can protect Americans' rights — and also protect families from gun violence. #GOPdebate"

• June 2016, on ABC’s This Week: "I believe we can have common-sense gun-safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment." (More on this later.)

Setting aside the bulk of Clinton’s comments on protecting the Second Amendment (examples here, here, here, here, here and here), we’ll now go over three points that some gun rights advocates and experts say gives Trump’s charge some credence.

Smoking guns?

Clinton riled the gun lobby with two eyebrow-raising comments last fall and one from this spring.

Clinton said in October 2015 a national gun buyback program like Australia’s compulsory program was "worth looking into." After a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic weapons and enacted a mandatory buyback of the newly prohibited guns.

That program is "incompatible with private ownership of guns," Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told us in May. (The National Rifle Association shares this view.)

The full context of Clinton’s response, however, suggests she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program, as she also evoked voluntary buybacks as potential models for a U.S. program.

Second, Clinton said in a leaked recording of a private fundraiser that she thinks the Supreme Court "is wrong on the Second Amendment," referring to its landmark ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down Washington’s handgun ban and recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the individual’s right to bear arms.

Experts who support gun rights told us undoing Heller basically ends the Second Amendment as currently interpreted. They pointed out that former Justice Department officials under President Bill Clinton and his appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in Heller that gun regulations do not violate the Second Amendment because it primarily pertains to a well-regulated militia, not the individual right to bear arms.

Clinton, in her June interview on This Week, added fuel to the fire when she appeared to talk about the individual right as a hypothetical.

"Do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?" host George Stephanopoulos asked.

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation," she responded. "And what people have done with (the Heller) decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms."

The NRA and voices on the right seized upon these comments as proof that Clinton doesn’t really believe in the individual right to bear arms. But that ignores what she said immediately after:

"So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right — I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else."

UCLA Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, meanwhile, said that the accuracy of Trump’s charge depends on Clinton’s grounds for rejecting Heller. (According to news reports from the 2008 election, she supported Washington’s handgun ban.)

"If she thought the reasoning was wrong, but the result right, then she would fit in with a number of strong pro-gun advocates," he said. "If, however, she thought there should be no protection for gun rights, then Trump's claim comes closer to the truth."

The Clinton campaign previously told us Clinton "believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe."

This suggests Clinton disagrees with the court declaring the district’s ban on handguns unconstitutional, not necessarily the individual right itself — a position that’s more or less in line with the George W. Bush administration’s position on Heller of recognizing the right but allowing reasonable curtailment.

Our ruling

Trump said, "My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."

The addition of the word essentially doesn’t change the accuracy of this claim. We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. The bulk of her comments suggest the opposite: She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership.

Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

FM

Checking the facts from Donald Trump's speech

A closer look at some of the claims made during Republican nominee's acceptance on Thursday

The Associated Press Posted: Jul 22, 2016 12:53 AM ETLast Updated: Jul 22, 2016 12:53 AM ET, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/a...fact-check-1.3690469

Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, speaks during the final day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, speaks during the final day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Despite promising "the truth, and nothing else" in his convention speech, Donald Trump presented the nation with a series of previously debunked claims and some new ones Thursday night — about the U.S. tax burden, the perils facing police, Hillary Clinton's record and more.

Source -- http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/a...fact-check-1.3690469

FM

Donald Trump wrong that Tim Kaine took more gifts than Bob McDonnell

=====================================

Our ruling

Trump, speaking about gift-taking, said, "Bob McDonnell took a fraction of what (Tim) Kaine took."

Kaine accepted $162,083 in gifts as lieutenant governor and governor, all of which was disclosed as required by state law.

McDonnell disclosed accepting $275,707 in gifts as attorney general and governor. And there was another $177,000 that he didn’t disclose. That comes to a total of $452,707 in gifts - almost three times Kaine’s total.

Trump has got this one dead wrong.

We rate his statement Pants on Fire.

=====================================

NBC's Chuck Todd interviews Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for the July 24 edition of "Meet the Press" about Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders and his comments about NATO. (NBC)

Donald Trump welcomed U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., to the Democratic presidential ticket on Sunday by assailing the presumptive vice presidential nominee’s ethics.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump said Kaine accepted more political gifts than former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

That’s a big claim, because McDonnell, a Republican, stood trial for accepting $177,000 in undisclosed personal gifts from an entrepreneur who was seeking business with the state. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned McDonnell’s bribery convictions in June.

"Bob McDonnell took a fraction of what Kaine took," said Trump, the GOP presidential nominee. "And I think, to me, it’s a big problem. Now, how do you take all these gifts? Hundreds of thousands of dollars."

We wondered whether McDonnell’s gift-taking was, in fact, "a fraction" of Kaine’s. Trump’s campaign did not respond to our request for proof. So we set out on our own, comparing gifts Kaine received as lieutenant governor and governor from 2002 to 2010 to those McDonnell accepted as attorney general from 2006 to 2009 and as governor from 2010 to 2014.

During those years, Virginia didn’t limit gifts to its politicians; the only requirement was that officeholders disclose what they accepted.

We researched the online files of the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonprofit organization that keeps records of campaign contributions and financial disclosure statements filed by state politicians.

Kaine  

According to VPAP, Kaine accepted $162,083 in gifts. Of that amount, $35,442 came when he was lieutenant governor from 2002 to 2006, and $126,641 came when he was governor the next four years.

Most of the money was for political travel. The gifts include $45,000 that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign paid for Kaine’s airline and lodging expenses as a surrogate speaker.

Also on the list were $20,000 in travel reimbursements from Moving Virginia Forward, a PAC Kaine set up for political expenses. He listed another $11,000 in travel financed by the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Kaine also accepted some personal gifts. The largest was use of a political donor’s home in the Caribbean for a vacation shortly after Kaine was elected governor in 2005. On a disclosure form, Kaine estimated the in-kind value of the lodging at $18,000.

He also accepted $5,500 in clothing from Stuart Siegel, chairman of S&K Famous Brands Inc. And he accepted a variety of tickets to football and basketball games and even a concert by the Dave Matthews Band.

All of these gifts were disclosed. There have been no allegations that Kaine accepted undisclosed gifts.

McDonnell

According to VPAP, McDonnell disclosed $275,707 in gifts. Of that amount, $60,293 came when he was attorney general, and $215,414 came when he was governor.  

Some of the money was used for political travel, but it’s hard to get an idea of how much, because McDonnell did not consistently report the purpose for his travels. Some of the gifts also went to McDonnell’s enjoyment, including at least $34,000 in tickets and travel to Washington Redskins and University of Notre Dame football games.

In addition, as we noted earlier, McDonnell and his family accepted $177,000 in undisclosed gifts and special loans from a businessman who was seeking the state’s help in marketing a dietary supplement.

These gifts included a $6,000 Rolex watch; use of the businessman’s vacation home at Smith Mountain Lake; $15,000 for the catering bill at the wedding of McDonnell’s oldest daughter, as well as a $10,000 wedding check to her; and a designer gown for McDonnell’s wife.

All told, McDonnell’s disclosed and undisclosed gifts come to $452,707.

Our ruling

Trump, speaking about gift-taking, said, "Bob McDonnell took a fraction of what (Tim) Kaine took."

Kaine accepted $162,083 in gifts as lieutenant governor and governor, all of which was disclosed as required by state law.

McDonnell disclosed accepting $275,707 in gifts as attorney general and governor. And there was another $177,000 that he didn’t disclose. That comes to a total of $452,707 in gifts - almost three times Kaine’s total.

Trump has got this one dead wrong.

We rate his statement Pants on Fire.

 

===============

About this statement:

Published: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 5:14 p.m.

Researched by: Warren Fiske

Edited by: Brice Anderson

Subjects: Ethics

Sources:

Donald Trump, Interview on "Meet the Press," July 24, 2016

Virginia Public Access Project, Tim Kaine gifts, 2002-2009, accessed July 24, 2016

The Washington Post, "Kaine’s acceptance of gifts in Virginia could create opening for Republicans," July 22, 2016

The Washington Post, "McDonnell’s gift list," assessed July 24, 2016

Trump tweets

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Donald Trump Jr. says unemployment rates are manipulated for political purposes

=========================

Our ruling

Because his claim is in the realm of the ridiculous, we rate it Pants on Fire!

Trump Jr. said that unemployment numbers "are artificial numbers. These are numbers that are massaged to make the existing economy look good, to make this administration look good when, in fact, it's a total disaster."

The economists with whom we spoke said Trump is wrong to question the integrity of the federal unemployment data. The method of developing the estimates have been used for decades, their limitations are widely recognized, other economic indicators have confirmed their reliability, and there's no evidence that they have been massaged for political purposes.

=========================

Are the unemployment numbers being manipulated to make the Obama administration look good?

That was the contention of Donald Trump Jr., son of the Republican presidential nominee, during the July 24 edition of CNN's State of the Union.

Trump was making a point frequently made by his father — that the official unemployment rate is lower than it should be because it doesn't take into account the people who would like a job but have stopped looking.

"The way we actually measure unemployment is after x number of months if someone can't find a job, congratulations, they're miraculously off," he said. "That doesn't count" in the calculation.

"These are artificial numbers," Trump continued. "These are numbers that are massaged to make the existing economy look good, to make this administration look good when, in fact, it's a total disaster. ... Those are the people we want to put to work"

He's correct that the widely-reported unemployment number doesn't capture the full employment picture. But for this check, we'll talk about whether the numbers are massaged to make the economy look better than it is.

We've looked at the issue before with Donald Trump Sr. when he claimed the "real" rate was 18 to 20 percent (False) or may be as high as 42 percent (Pants on Fire).

The unemployment rate is developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics based in part on data from interviews of about 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau  As Trump Jr. indicated, it only includes people who have recently looked for a job.

But that's the way it's consistently been done for decades. Alternative methods have their own limitations.

Allegations of manipulation

When we asked for evidence that the numbers are distorted for political reasons, Trump campaign spokesman Dan Kowalski referred us to a 2013 New York Post story alleging that the Census Bureau "faked" the sharp drop in the September 2012 unemployment rate just prior to the election that gave Obama a second term.

The story's only identified source was a Census employee, Julius Buckmon, who told the Post that his superiors had told him to make up interviews that serve as the basis for the statistic.

Two problems: Buckmon had left the bureau by 2012, and he told the paper he was never told to sway the statistic in favor of Obama.

As we reported in 2013, even a worker who made up interviews wouldn't be able to pull enough statistical weight to significantly affect the unemployment rate for any month.

A typical worker handles data from 35 to 55 of the 60,000 or so households surveyed. And the bureau routinely double-checks its findings by having households re-interviewed by a different person in an attempt to look for inconsistencies that might point to manipulation.

The Office of the Inspector General at the Commerce Department concluded in May 2014 that there was "no evidence" that the numbers had been manipulated in the runup to Obama's reelection, especially when other sources confirmed the trend.

The report said: "It would have taken 78 Census Bureau Field Representatives working together, in a coordinated way, to report each and every unemployed person included in their sample as 'employed' or 'not in labor force' during September 2012" to produce that kind of manipulation.

Since then, unemployment has continued to fall.

Artificial numbers?

Other experts joined Baker in dismissing the younger Trump’s allegation about the standard unemployment rate.

"The same basic definition of the unemployment rate has been used (with minor changes) going back almost all the way to World War II, under both Republican and Democratic administrations," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

"This measure has been consistently produced following the same basic methodology in the U.S. and copied around the world for over 50 years," said Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University.

And what about Trump's complaint that the numbers are skewed by not including people who have given up looking for work?

Sinclair said the BLS tries to track that through a variation of the unemployment rate known as U-6, or the "underutilization" rate. This version includes people who have stopped looking for work but say they would start if the market improved, people working part-time because they can't get full-time work, along with the people included in the standard unemployment rate.

By it's nature, the U-6 rate is higher. The June rate was 9.6 percent compared to the conventional unemployment rate of 4.9 percent.

But that estimate has its limitations as well. It doesn’t count recent graduates who never entered the labor market in the first place because they feared there would be no jobs for them, and it doesn’t count people who chose to take care of their kids full-time, went back to school or retired early to avoid having to compete for a job.

By that statistic, the economy is not as healthy as the conventional unemployment estimate would indicate.

Casey Mulligan, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, said it's fair for the younger Trump to dispute the standard unemployment rate as an indicator of economic performance because the labor market has not gained the type of strength you would expect with the current unemployment rate.

It's a question of which BLS data to use "rather than the competence of the BLS per se," he said.

But Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the important thing "is to be consistent across time in which measure you use. It wouldn't be right to switch from looking at the conventional rate to a measure that includes discouraged workers just because you don't like the incumbent president and want to make things look bad for him."

Other experts were more blunt.

Trump’s comment "is a reprise of the same nonsense his father floated a few months ago. It is yet another conspiracy theory that the Trumps have grabbed onto," said Neil Buchanan, a George Washington University law professor.

The limitations of the unemployment number are well known, he said. "Everyone who reads an article in a decent newspaper about the employment picture each month reads about discouraged workers, part-time workers, and so on."

"There are plenty of grounds for us nerd-types to complain about the accuracy of the BLS numbers," said Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington. "No survey is perfect and there will always be issues with how a survey is conducted and questions are posed. But the idea that BLS cooks numbers is beyond ridiculous."

Our ruling

Trump Jr. said that unemployment numbers "are artificial numbers. These are numbers that are massaged to make the existing economy look good, to make this administration look good when, in fact, it's a total disaster."

The economists with whom we spoke said Trump is wrong to question the integrity of the federal unemployment data. The method of developing the estimates have been used for decades, their limitations are widely recognized, other economic indicators have confirmed their reliability, and there's no evidence that they have been massaged for political purposes.

Because his claim is in the realm of the ridiculous, we rate it Pants on Fire!

FM

No, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders wouldn't have won even if super delegates were nixed

===================================

Our ruling

We rate Trump’s claim False.

Trump tweeted, "An analysis showed that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination if it were not for the Super Delegates."

This does not check out. Sanders would have still lost without superdelegates in the mix, because Clinton won a majority of the popular vote and pledged delegates.

On the contrary, the only way for Sanders to have won is he would have been able to persuade more superdelegates to switch their votes from Clinton to him.

===================================

Donald Trump fired off a series of tweets about Bernie Sanders over the weekend, at times commiserating with the senator over their shared disdain for the "rigged" political system and at others attacking Sanders for giving into it by endorsing Hillary Clinton.

The Republican nominee commented on Wikileaks’ release of Democratic National Committee emails in which officials appear to have, among other things, mused over questioning Sanders’ religion and attacked campaign manager Jeff Weaver.

"An analysis showed that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination if it were not for the Super Delegates," he tweeted.

This last Trump tweet piqued our interest. Would it really be Sanders accepting the nomination this week at the DNC if not for superdelegates?

Superdelegates, if you’ll remember from our primer, are the party officials and bigshots who make up about one-sixth of the delegates in the Democratic Party’s system. Under the rules that governed this year’s primaries, the superdelegates weren’t bound to the voting results in their state and could vote for whomever they wish.

Many superdelegates backed Clinton before voting even began, and she commanded a disproportionate lead in superdelegates throughout the primaries, eliciting many cries of unfairness and cronyism from voters and Sanders supporters.  

But Trump is wrong. Sanders would not have won the primary without these party insiders.

The Trump campaign didn’t get back to us, but the "analysis" he may have been referring to could be a blog post on Gateway Pundit, a conservative newsblog.

The post’s headline is "NOTE TO SANDERS SUPPORTERS: Bernie Would Have Won If Not for Super Delegate System!" It makes a flawed argument that Sanders would have nabbed the nomination if all of the Clinton superdelegates backed him instead.  

That math checks out on paper, but it is nonsensical in reality.  The post offers no rationale for why the superdelegates should flip their votes against the popular vote (Clinton won 3.8 million more than Sanders). Experts told PolitiFact Florida that superdelegates could have played a difference if the race was closer. And to top it off, Sanders himself repeatedly advocated for superdelegates to follow the will of their state’s voters.

In other scenarios, such as binding superdelegates to their state’s vote proportionally or taking them out of the system all together, Sanders would have still been unable to reach the magical 2,383-threshold of delegates needed to capture the nomination and would still trail Clinton.

Here’s a breakdown of how many superdelegates Clinton and Sanders would have received under different primary systems, based on Green Papers’ superdelegate count.

 

Clinton

Total (superdelegates)

Sanders

Total (superdelegates)

Without superdelegates (Trump suggestion)

2,200

1,831

With unbound superdelegates (current system)

2,771 (571)

1,875 (44)

With winner-take-all superdelegates

2,721 (521)

2,019 (188)

With proportional allocation of superdelegates

2,590 (390)

2,150 (319)

(A note about our delegate methodology: Delegate counts vary from publication to publication, so we used Real Clear Politics and Green Papers, sources listed by the Gateway Pundit blog post. While RCP offers a superdelegate count, it does not offer state-by-state breakdowns so we referred to Green Papers for its superdelegate breakdown.)

The bottom line: Binding the superdelegates to the winner of their state’s primary or caucus would have closed the delegate gap between Clinton and Sanders, but it wouldn’t have been enough for Sanders to win.

Our ruling

Trump tweeted, "An analysis showed that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination if it were not for the Super Delegates."

This does not check out. Sanders would have still lost without superdelegates in the mix, because Clinton won a majority of the popular vote and pledged delegates.

On the contrary, the only way for Sanders to have won is he would have been able to persuade more superdelegates to switch their votes from Clinton to him.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

FM

Trump campaign wrong about Clinton influence on debates against Sanders, Trump

==================================

We rate Manafort’s claim False.

==================================

Our ruling

Manafort said, "The DNC hack showed you that the Clinton campaign was working to schedule debates against Sanders" and the Clinton campaign is continuing this "ploy" against Trump.

Experts agree the Democratic primary debate schedule was more advantageous to Clinton than Sanders, but there is no evidence in the DNC emails that show Clinton conspired to make this happen.

As for the notion that Clinton rigged the presidential debate schedule ahead of the general election, experts told us it’s pretty absurd. The commission that plans the debates released its schedule six months before the NFL released theirs, and almost a year before Clinton and Trump became the Democratic and Republican nominees.  

We rate Manafort’s claim False.

==================================

The day after Hillary Clinton wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president, Republican rival Donald Trump was already accusing her of "rigging" the presidential debates to coincide with NFL games in the fall.

"As usual, Hillary & the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/ Bernie. Unacceptable!" Trump tweeted.

Trump doubled down on his charge Sunday, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he "got a letter from the NFL saying this is ridiculous" (which the NFL denies).

Campaign chairman Paul Manafort echoed the complaint on NBC’s Meet the Press.

"The DNC hack showed you that the Clinton campaign was working to schedule debates against (Bernie) Sanders, which have the least possible viewing audience. Mr. Trump’s saying, Look we want the maximum viewing audience," Manafort said. "We're not going to fall ploy to the Hillary Clinton ploy that she did against Bernie Sanders of trying to have the lowest viewing audience. We want the biggest."

It is well-established that the Democrats held fewer primary debates on nights with a lighter audience and with more popular programming.

However, Manafort’s statement overplays what’s in the DNC emails and ignores how presidential primary and general election debates are actually set.

There is no evidence in leaked DNC emails that the Clinton campaign lobbied for weekend dates or fewer debates in her primary fight against Sanders. There is also no evidence that the Clinton campaign had any hand in the setting the debates between Trump and Clinton.

A bipartisan commission released the chosen dates 11 months before Clinton and Trump secured the party’s nomination.

Debating the Democratic debates

We asked the Trump campaign for specific emails released by WikiLeaks that prove Manafort’s point about the Clinton campaign colluding to minimize debate viewership, but we didn’t hear back. Our own search turned up no smoking emails.

The party announced it would host six debates in May 2015, and released in August dates for the first four square-offs — three of which fell on weekends. Many criticized the DNC for the paucity and poor timing of these debates, and experts we spoke with agreed that the schedule benefitted Clinton.

Not only, however, do zero emails in the WikiLeaks DNC archive involve anything about the scheduling of these planned debates. There is also no proof of the Clinton campaign having any say over the dates. In most exchanges, DNC staffers are discussing logistics (i.e. asking MSNBC if anchor Chris Matthews would be willing to meet with donors and requesting expense invoices) or media coverage and backlash.

Overall, there’s no evidence of intent to harm Sanders with the debates or collusion between the Clinton camp and the DNC, said Kathleen Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote the book Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate.

Aaron Kall, the director of debate at the University of Michigan, commended the DNC for adding three more debates after a series of primary wins for Sanders in early 2016. He said the changed philosophy may be the best evidence that the DNC was listening to Democratic voters.

A scuttled Fox debate

Manafort may have been alluding to a few email threads that detail negotiations over a fourth Fox News debate in California that ultimately didn’t happen. While some backs-and-forth indicate a lack of enthusiasm, they do not show the DNC or the Clinton actively trying to schedule the debate to hurt Sanders.

Former DNC chair Wasserman Schultz wasn’t thrilled about the idea at first, but her objection seemed to be Fox News hosting, not the idea of an extra debate in general.

"Boy, they (Fox News) are laying it on thick," she wrote May 13. "The RNC would never do an MSNBC debate for the same reason that we shouldn't do this one."

Negotiations nonetheless continued as the Clinton campaign and DNC seemed to be at odds with the Sanders campaign over whether the debate would be sanctioned by the party (which would give the DNC more control).

Fox eventually sent invites to both camps with the DNC’s blessing, and Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs emailed the DNC May 18 notifying them that Sanders had accepted the invite. "Lol," responded DNC communications director Luis Miranda.

Wasserman Schultz told her staffers that the Clinton declined to "take the bait" May 19, and the Clinton campaign declined Fox’s invite a few days later, squashing the possibility of a fourth debate.

Wasserman Schultz addressed the criticism lobbed at her for the debates specifically in an May 18 email, pushing back on the notion she "put them on weekends so people wouldn’t see them" and arguing that the DNC worked with the networks and campaigns on the dates.

"Debates were a success! And when he (Sanders) wanted more, she went to bat with the Clinton campaign and got more debates," Wasserman Schultz wrote.

General confusion, not collusion

Manafort’s second charge that Clinton had something to do with putting two general election debates on nights with football games is less credible.

The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan organization that works independently of the campaigns. As our friends at the Washington Post Fact-Checker pointed out, the commission released its schedule in September 2015, long before Trump and Clinton became party nominees and long before the NFL released its schedule in April 2016.

"The Commission on Presidential Debates started working more than 18 months ago to identify religious and federal holidays, baseball league playoff games, NFL games, and other events in order to select the best nights for the 2016 debate. It is impossible to avoid all sporting events, and there have been nights on which debates and games occurred in most election cycles. A debate has never been rescheduled as a result," the commission said in a statement.

The Trump campaign’s charges are "absolutely baseless," said Alan Schroeder, a professor at Northeastern University who wrote Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV.

"There is no rigging, and nothing different about this year's schedule from previous cycles," Schroeder told us.

Kall of the University of Michigan said the commission does not consult the campaigns during the planning process. "They don’t talk to any of the campaigns. They come up with a schedule that works with the hosts and they also have to juggle religious holidays."

Given that there are 256 NFL games from early September to December, Kall said, it would be near impossible to schedule a debate that wasn’t on a weekend or holiday and didn’t coincide with a game. Plus, it’s happened before, Jamieson reminded us.

Take, for example, the last debate of the 2012 presidential election. It occurred Oct. 22, the same night as a Detroit Lions game against the Chicago Bears. It still pulled in 59.2 million viewers.

Trump and Clinton’s sparring will likely draw even bigger audiences considering Trump’s ability to command press and public attention and Clinton’s decades-long tenure in the political limelight. Even with the NFL conflicts, Kall told us he expects at least 70 million if not 100 million viewers.

In other words, Trump will probably get his maximum viewing audience.

Our ruling

Manafort said, "The DNC hack showed you that the Clinton campaign was working to schedule debates against Sanders" and the Clinton campaign is continuing this "ploy" against Trump.

Experts agree the Democratic primary debate schedule was more advantageous to Clinton than Sanders, but there is no evidence in the DNC emails that show Clinton conspired to make this happen.

As for the notion that Clinton rigged the presidential debate schedule ahead of the general election, experts told us it’s pretty absurd. The commission that plans the debates released its schedule six months before the NFL released theirs, and almost a year before Clinton and Trump became the Democratic and Republican nominees.  

We rate Manafort’s claim False.

 

About this statement:

Published: Sunday, July 31st, 2016 at 6:36 p.m.

Researched by: Linda Qiu

Edited by: Katie Sanders

Subjects: Debates

Sources:

NBC, Meet the Press, July 31, 2016

CNN, "Clinton, Democratic presidential opponents to debate six times," May 5, 2015

Medium, "Announcing the Democratic Debate Schedule," Aug. 6, 2015

PolitiFact Florida, "Democratic debates set to 'maximize' exposure, Wasserman Schultz claims, but evidence is dubious," Jan. 20, 2016

Wikileaks, DNC email archive, accessed July 31, 2016

Washington Post, "What we know about the presidential debates and the NFL schedule," July 31, 2016

NFL, "NFL releases 2016 regular-season schedule," April 14, 2016

NFL, "Creating the NFL Schedule," accessed July 31, 2016

PolitiFact, "Fact-checking the third presidential debate," Oct. 22, 2012

NFL, "NFL Schedule 2012; Week 7," accessed July 31, 2016

Washington Post, "Here are the facts about the debate over debates," July 31, 2016

Interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, July 31, 2016

Interview with Aaron Kall, director of debate at the University of Michigan, July 31, 2016

Email interview with Alan Schroeder, professor at Northeastern University, July 31, 2016

Email interview with the Commission on Presidential Debates, July 31, 2016

FM

Donald Trump gets a Full Flop for whether he's had a relationship to Vladimir Putin

==============================

Our ruling

We rate this a Full Flop.

Trump has changed what he’s said about whether he’s had a relationship with Putin.

In 2013, he said, "I do have a relationship." In 2014 he said, "I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin" and said the Russian leader had sent him a present. In 2015, he said, "I got to know him very well" due to their joint appearance on 60 Minutes.

More recently, though, Trump has said, "I never met Putin -- I don't know who Putin is" and "I have no relationship with him."

We rate this a Full Flop.

==============================

The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee’s computers, allegedly by Russian hackers, has put a renewed spotlight on Donald Trump’s connections to Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin.

When Trump sat for an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos shortly after the Democratic National Convention, Stephanopoulos brought up the topic. Trump told Stephanopoulos that he didn’t have a relationship with Putin.

Stephanopoulos challenged him on this -- and the host was on solid ground. Trump’s denial of a relationship with Putin contradicted what he had said on multiple previous occasions.

Prior to early 2016, Trump seemed to tout his ties to the Russian leader. Trump, a lifelong businessman, boasted of foreign policy experience based on his experience hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013. For instance, during an interview with Fox News on May 6, 2016, Trump told host Bret Baier, "I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event. An incredible success."

But the closeness Trump claims to Putin-era Russia has prompted questions from critics, including foreign policy professionals in both parties. The U.S.  government sees Russia as a geopolitical rival and Putin in particular as a sometimes problematic force in international relations.

Trump’s seeming fondness for Putin has worried critics in both parties.

For instance, Trump took flak a few days before the Stephanopoulos interview after he seemed to encourage Russia to spy on the United States in order to find thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said during a news conference in Florida."

So, facing growing questions about the wisdom of attaching his star to Putin’s, has Trump changed his position on whether the two have had a relationship? Here’s a closer look.

Trump’s earlier comments suggesting a relationship with Putin

Here are four occasions between 2013 and 2015 when Trump touted his ties to Putin.

When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

• "You know, I was in Moscow a couple of months ago. I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful present." -- address at the CPAC conference, March 2014

• "Russia does not respect our country any longer. They see we've been greatly weakened, both militarily and otherwise, and he certainly does not respect President Obama. So what I would do—as an example, I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success. The show was live from Moscow, and we had tremendous success there and it was amazing, but to do well, you have to get the other side to respect you, and he does not respect our president, which is very sad." -- address at the National Press Club, May 2014

• "As far as the Ukraine is concerned … if Putin wants to go in -- and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very well that night." -- portion of an answer at the Fox Business News debate, Nov. 2015. (The notion that the two men appeared together on 60 Minutes has been debunked. As Time magazine put it succinctly, "In fact, they weren’t even on the same continent.")

The Stephanopoulos interview

Recently, though, Trump has changed his tune.

Here are excerpts from the Trump-Stephanopoulos interview, which aired on ABC’s This Week on July 31.

Stephanopoulos: "Let's talk about Russia. You made a lot of headlines with Russia this week. What exactly is your relationship with Vladimir Putin?"

Trump: "I have no relationship to -- with him. I have no relationship with him."

Stephanopoulos: "But if you have no relationship with Putin, then why did you say in 2013, I do have a relationship. In 2014, I spoke…"

Trump: "Because he has said nice things about me over the years. I remember years ago, he said something -- many years ago, he said something very nice about me. I said something good about him when Larry King was on. This was a long time ago. And I said he is a tough cookie or something to that effect. He said something nice about me. This has been going on. We did 60 Minutes together. By the way, not together-together, meaning he was probably shot in Moscow…."

Stephanopoulos: "Well, he was in Moscow…."

Trump: "And I was shot in New York."

Stephanopoulos: "You were in New York. But that's the thing."

Trump: "No, just so you understand, he said very nice things about me, but I have no relationship with him. I don't -- I've never met him. … I have no relationship with Putin. I don't think I've ever met him. I never met him. … I mean if he's in the same room or something. But I don't think so. ..."

Stephanopoulos: "You've never spoken to him on the phone?"

Trump: "I have never spoken to him on the phone, no. … Well, I don't know what it means by having a relationship. I mean he was saying very good things about me, but I don't have a relationship with him. I didn't meet him. I haven't spent time with him. I didn't have dinner with him. I didn't go hiking with him. I don't know -- and I wouldn't know him from Adam except I see his picture and I would know what he looks like."

Also, on July 27, Trump said at a press conference in Florida, "I never met Putin -- I don't know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me. He said I'm a genius. I said thank you very much to the newspaper and that was the end of it. I never met Putin."

For the record: Media outlets have said the more accurate translation for what Putin said was "flamboyant," rather than "genius," and Putin subsequently confirmed that he was trying to indicate "flamboyant" when he made his his remark.

Our ruling

Trump has changed what he’s said about whether he’s had a relationship with Putin.

In 2013, he said, "I do have a relationship." In 2014 he said, "I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin" and said the Russian leader had sent him a present. In 2015, he said, "I got to know him very well" due to their joint appearance on 60 Minutes.

More recently, though, Trump has said, "I never met Putin -- I don't know who Putin is" and "I have no relationship with him."

We rate this a Full Flop.

FM

Donald Trump wrongly says Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class

=============================

Our ruling

We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

The Trump campaign said, "Hillary Clinton says  she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "

According to the transcript, numerous reporters, experts and a computer program, Clinton said the exact opposite.

We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

=============================

Hillary Clinton just admitted to a big tax hike, at least according to Donald Trump.

The Trump campaign sent an email blast to supporters embedded with a video of a Clinton event in Omaha, Neb., entitled, "Hillary Clinton says she wants to ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’"

The subtitles of Clinton’s speech read: "Trump wants to cuts taxes for the super rich. Well, we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class."

"Wait what?" the videos continues, before playing the damning sentence in slow motion: "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class."

"Wait, what?" was the reaction of the Clinton campaign too. Spokesman Josh Schwerin told us Clinton actually said the exact opposite.

He pointed to numerous reporters who agreed and forwarded us a transcript of Clinton’s prepared remarks that reads, "We aren’t going to to raise taxes on the middle class."

It’s a classic case of she-heard-he-heard, so we asked experts to arbitrate. They agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Get ready for some science.

Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics.

By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."

Here’s a screenshot of the results:

As you can see, the phoneme (unit of sound) highlighted in pink is an "n," though there’s not a "t." That still suggests she was trying for the word "aren’t."

"It is pretty common for people to not release the final ‘t in word-final -nt clusters and is definitely not likely for someone to release the ‘t’in a three-consonant sequence like ‘ntg’ in ‘aren't going,’" Yu told us. "In any case, since she did pronounce the ‘n’ in ‘aren't’, it is clear that she produced the negated form of the copula ‘are.’"

Edward Flemming, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also ran the audio through Praat and came up with the same results. But even if we didn’t have Praat, he said, context alone sways the argument in the Clinton camp’s favor.

"Also if she was going to say ‘we are going to’, wouldn’t she contract it to ‘we’re’, as she does a few words earlier?" Flemming pointed out. "To my ears, it is clear that she is saying ‘aren’t’."

Clinton’s tax plan, by the way, does not change the tax rates for the middle class and instead targets the wealthy through small reforms.

Our ruling

The Trump campaign said, "Hillary Clinton says  she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "

According to the transcript, numerous reporters, experts and a computer program, Clinton said the exact opposite.

We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

FM

Donald Trump says he didn't see video of cash being transferred for ransom after all

====================================

Our ruling

We rate the claim False.

Trump said he had seen videotape "of the people taking the money off the plane" to pay ransom to Iran for hostages. He and his campaign now acknowledge that they were referring to a different video -- of the hostages themselves being freed -- that did not include any transfer of money from a plane.

We rate the claim False.

====================================

For two days, Donald Trump told rally audiences a detailed account of seeing video footage of stacks of cash being taken off an airplane, destined to pay Iran for the release of American hostages.

Now, even Trump acknowledges that such video footage doesn’t exist.

The issue emerged because news reports suggested that a $400 million cash payment from the U.S. government amounted to ransom for hostages held by Iran. Republicans have charged that a quid pro quo ran counter to longstanding U.S. policy not to pay ransom for hostages. The White House has responded that the payments were the conclusion of a decades-old dispute over funds frozen after the fall of the Shah of Iran and were not a ransom.

But questions surrounding Trump’s depiction of video footage has distracted from the substantive policy dispute over whether and how such a payment should have been made. Almost from the moment Trump mentioned seeing the video, skeptics wondered whether it actually existed, because none had been publicly released.

So what actually happened?

What Trump said

Trump addressed this topic at two different rallies. The first was an Aug. 3 rally in Daytona Beach, Fla.

Here’s what he said:

"I got up this morning, and I pick up the papers, and then I turn on the news, and I see $400 million being shipped in cash, they didn’t want dollars, it’s in different currencies, and it's being shipped overnight to Iran -- $400 million. … I look, and I'll never forget the scene this morning. And remember this: Iran -- I don't think you've heard this anywhere, but here -- Iran provided all of that footage, the tape, of taking that money off that airplane, right? $400 million in cash. … And they have a perfect tape done by obviously a government camera and the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane, right? That means that in order to embarrass us further, Iran sent us the tapes, right? It's a military tape. It's a tape that was a perfect angle, nice and steady. Nobody getting nervous because they're going to be shot because they're shooting a picture of money pouring off a plane."

The next day, he held a rally in Portland, Maine.

He said this:

"You saw that with the airplane coming in. Nice plane. And the airplane coming in. And the money coming off, I guess. Right? That was given to us, has to be, by the Iranians. You know why the tape was given to us? Because they want to embarrass our country. They want to embarrass our country. And they want to embarrass our president, because we have a president who's incompetent."

Trump certainly makes it sound as if there’s video footage of the cash being hustled off a plane, and that he’s seen that footage.

The backtrack

But before the second rally was even held, his campaign had already backed off that claim.

The Washington Post reported that late on Aug. 3 -- which was after the Daytona Beach event but before the Portland event -- Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to an email "that asked if the footage Trump was referencing was actually widely shown video of a private plane landing in Switzerland in January with three American prisoners who had just been released by Iran, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian."

According to the Post, Hicks responded in an email, "Yes. Merely the b-roll footage included in every broadcast." (B-roll is a television industry term for pre-recorded videotape spliced into a live report.)

Still, Trump went out and made the remarks again.

After the second rally, Trump himself tweeted that he was referring to a different piece of video. "The plane I saw on television was the hostage plane in Geneva, Switzerland, not the plane carrying $400 million in cash going to Iran!"

In other words, Trump had seen widely reported video footage of the hostages being released, but described it in some detail -- and incorrectly -- as showing stacks of money being unloaded from a plane.

Here’s a still from the footage of the hostage transfer that was aired on U.S. television.

A final note

On Aug. 5, several hours after Trump’s tweet, conservative websites including the Washington Free Beacon posted footage from what it called an Iranian documentary aired earlier this year in Iran. During a discussion of the hostage transfer, the documentary showed a brief image of a stack of pallets.

According to the Free Beacon, "The footage is part of a February documentary published by Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The documentary purported to reveal behind-the-scenes details of the negotiations with the United States to free the American hostages. It maintains the negotiations were tied up in efforts to push the Iran nuclear agreement forward as it moved towards implementation."

The pallets in the footage are partially obscured, and it is too blurry to tell for sure whether these pallets hold piles of currency. "Iran experts who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon said that it is impossible to verify if the images show the same pallets of cash transferred by the Obama administration," the Free Beacon reported.

We checked with the Trump campaign to learn whether this was actually the video he was referring to, even though it didn’t show money "pouring" off a plane and even though it had not aired on U.S. news channels. We did not hear back.

For now, we are going by Trump’s own statement, backed up by Hicks’ statement, that he was referring to a different video -- the widely aired footage that shows the hostages being released, without any money being transferred.

Our ruling

Trump said he had seen videotape "of the people taking the money off the plane" to pay ransom to Iran for hostages. He and his campaign now acknowledge that they were referring to a different video -- of the hostages themselves being freed -- that did not include any transfer of money from a plane.

We rate the claim False.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Donald Trump exaggerates Michigan job losses from coal regulations

==============================

Our ruling

We rate the claim False.

Trump said that "the Obama-Clinton war on coal has cost Michigan over 50,000 jobs." However, this claim is problematic on several levels.

While the number matches one projection of how many potential jobs could be lost from the blockage of coal-fired plants, there’s a difference between actual jobs lost and potential future jobs lost. And the number cited -- an impossible-to-confirm projection based on broadly construed calculations released by a pro-coal group -- should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Trump also ignores that market forces, not just environmental regulations, have driven many of the job losses in the coal sector, and he also ignores that Michigan Republican officials and utilities themselves -- not just the Obama administration -- have pushed the switch away from coal.

We rate the claim False.

==============================

We checked one of the claims from Donald Trump's economic speech in Detroit.

During an economic address at the Detroit Economic Club, Donald Trump tailored some of his statistics to the local audience.

"As a result of recent Obama EPA actions, coal-fired plants across Michigan have either shut down entirely or undergone expensive conversions, making them non-competitive in many cases," Trump said. "The Obama-Clinton war on coal has cost Michigan over 50,000 jobs."

Trump has often criticized efforts by the Obama administration -- and those who find climate change to be a serious concern -- to wean the United States from fossil fuels by tightening federal environmental regulation of coal-fired power plants. Here, we’ll take a look at the second part of Trump’s statement: "The Obama-Clinton war on coal has cost Michigan over 50,000 jobs."

This assertion initially caught our eye because we’d never thought of Michigan as one of the premier coal-producing states. Our suspicion was correct: According to the National Mining Association, Michigan is not on the list of 26 states that currently produce any amount of coal.

Meanwhile, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of workers engaged in any type of mining in Michigan over the last decade has varied between 5,000 and 7,000, making it essentially impossible to have lost 50,000 existing jobs in that sector. And as the Washington Examiner has noted, Michigan has fewer than 20,000 people working in the electricity generation sector today. So the scale of the job losses Trump cites seem, at least at first blush, to be unlikely.

So what was Trump trying to say? The prepared version of his speech includes a footnote that points to a news release from the National Mining Association published almost five years ago, on Sept. 7, 2011.

Here are some excerpts from that news release, which criticized "Beyond Coal," a campaign against coal-fired power plants coordinated by the environmental group the Sierra Club and cited a study the group released:

"The destructive impact of the ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign is most clearly evident in the following 10 states where power plants blocked by the club represent the highest number of potential jobs (construction and permanent) foregone: Illinois (126,612), Texas (122,065), Montana (114,102), Nevada (75,194), Florida (75,055), Ohio (70,371), Colorado (55,620), Michigan (53,587), Oklahoma (42,581) and Kentucky (38,824)."

In response to an inquiry from PolitiFact, Andrew Wheeler, an energy adviser to the Trump campaign, also pointed to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis that found that 10 delayed or canceled projects in Michigan -- most of them coal-fired plants -- would have created 56,000 jobs up front had they been built.

Between the 53,000 jobs cited by the National Mining Association and the 56,000 jobs cited by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wheeler said, "it is obvious that the ‘over 50,000 jobs’ cited by Mr. Trump is accurate."

But just because a campaign is able to footnote a specific number doesn’t mean that the number is meaningful, or as fully contextualized as it ought to be.

Here are a few important things to know about this number.

The number refers to "potential" jobs lost, not actual jobs lost. This is an important point that would not be obvious from the way Trump phrased his statement. By leaving the impression that these were actual jobs lost, Trump’s statistic invites a degree of outrage that isn’t warranted.

And there are good reasons to be cautious about future job projections, especially when they have been framed so broadly as to include vendors to the industry, rail transport, ports and machinery manufacturers.

Any job projections of this sort are subject to rosy estimates -- especially if a group has a vested interest in the issue. In making an argument to the public, all groups will put forward their most favorable case.

Trey Pollard, the national press secretary for the Sierra Club -- which has its own dog in the fight -- said the number of plants being counted by the mining association are essentially "the coal industry’s wildest dreams" -- a reflection of circumstances in which they can build coal plants "in any community they want to."

The number doesn’t reflect that coal is increasingly being replaced by natural gas. Trump’s decision to use this number tells only part of the story of how the electricity sector has been developing.

In recent years, according to federal statistics, coal has been losing ground to natural gas and, to a lesser extent, renewable energy when it comes to electricity generation.

A July 2016 analysis by Sam Evans of the School of Business and Economics at King University in Bristol, Tenn., found that environmental regulation has been a factor in this switch, but a "secondary" one.

"The recent decline in the generation share of coal, and the concurrent rise in the share of natural gas, was mainly a market-driven response to lower natural gas prices that have made natural gas generation more economically attractive," Evans wrote.

This isn’t just about Obama or Clinton. Trump ignores that much of the impetus in Michigan for switching away from coal has come from the state’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder, and from utilities themselves.

Snyder has generally continued his support for steps to shift away from coal that began under his Democratic predecessor as governor, Jennifer Granholm. In 2015, Snyder said at an energy conference that "now is the time to look at a long-term transition away from coal," adding that because of the state’s natural gas infrastructure, "we're well positioned to actually have a fair amount of that coal demand go to natural gas."

And Gerry Anderson, the chairman and CEO of DTE Energy, an electric utility that serves more than 2 million customers in the state, has written that "we plan to retire older, less efficient coal plants and build new, cleaner natural gas power plants over the next decade."

Our ruling

Trump said that "the Obama-Clinton war on coal has cost Michigan over 50,000 jobs." However, this claim is problematic on several levels.

While the number matches one projection of how many potential jobs could be lost from the blockage of coal-fired plants, there’s a difference between actual jobs lost and potential future jobs lost. And the number cited -- an impossible-to-confirm projection based on broadly construed calculations released by a pro-coal group -- should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Trump also ignores that market forces, not just environmental regulations, have driven many of the job losses in the coal sector, and he also ignores that Michigan Republican officials and utilities themselves -- not just the Obama administration -- have pushed the switch away from coal.

We rate the claim False.

FM

Donald Trump's baseless claims about the election being 'rigged'

By Linda Qiu

=================================

Our ruling

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. election system is rigged.

We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire.

He has cited examples of voter fraud, which is extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election.

While there are isolated examples of bought local elections, experts say it cannot be replicated on a national scale. While it is possible to tamper with electronic voting machines, there is no evidence deliberate malfeasance has altered any election.

We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire.

=================================

Donald Trump preemptively challenged the results of the November presidential election, claiming in media appearances and rallies that the entire system is "rigged."

Trump’s charges of election fraud are not new to his campaign. He’s tweeted about dead voters delivering President Barack Obama’s victory in 2012, floated charges about multiple votingin the primaries, and suggested that undocumented immigrants "just walk in and vote" in some polling places.

Trump revived these theories as he fell behind Hillary Clinton in the polls (which, according to his surrogates, are "skewed").

"Nov. 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged," he said at an Aug. 1 rally in Columbus, Ohio. "People are going to walk in and they're going to vote 10 times, maybe, who knows?"

"I know last time, you had precincts where there were practically nobody voting for the Republican (Mitt Romney)," he said to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that same night. "I’m telling you, Nov. 8, we better be careful because that election is going to be rigged and I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us."

This is a serious allegation that challenges the integrity of the election, so we asked the Trump campaign to elaborate. We didn’t hear back.

When Trump has offered specifics — people voting though they’re ineligible, people voting multiple times, people impersonating dead voters — he’s actually talking about voter fraud, committed by individuals and committed very rarely.

Stolen 2012 election?

To sow doubts about the 2016 election, Trump pointed to alleged rigging in 2012.

While some precincts in Philadelphia exclusively voted for Obama in 2012, it’s grasping for straws to claim this is evidence for election rigging.

Defending Trump, Fox’s Sean Hannity pointed to a Philadelphia Inquirerarticle that showed 59 precincts in inner-city Philadelphia in which "Mitt Romney did not get a single vote, not one."

But Hannity leaves out that the same article also stated that "such results may not be so startling after all." The Inquirer wrote that 75 to 80 percent of voters in big cities like Philadelphia identify as Democrats, and 93 percent of African-Americans voted for Obama.

When the paper sought out the few registered Republicans living in the 59 districts, it found that several had moved, others didn’t realize they were registered with the party, and others confirmed that they had voted for Obama despite their political identification.

Election inspector Ryan Godfrey, an independent who was a Republican in 2012, called Hannity’s claims "absurd and personally insulting." After all, Godfrey argued, there’s a paper trail for the ballots in Philly and no evidence that he and the other election officials had risked prosecution to collude against Romney.  

Plus, CNN’s Brian Stelter countered, "a Google search would show that there are also precincts in other states, like in Utah, where Obama did not get a single vote."

Trumped up charges of voter fraud

Trump’s claims of voter fraud, which echo arguments for voter ID laws, are also not reflective of reality.

While the U.S. Government Accountability Office has acknowledged that it’s difficult to estimate how often voter fraud happens based on reported incidents, the evidence for rampant fraud is lacking.

News 21 found just 150 alleged cases of double voting, 56 cases of noncitizens voting, and 10 cases of voter impersonation across all elections from 2000 to 2011. Many of these never led to charges, while others were acquitted or dismissed. Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and an expert on voter fraud, found an even smaller number: 31 credible incidents out of more than 1 billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014.

Put it in another way: You’re more likely to get struck by lightning than to find voter fraud.

When voter fraud does occur, it’s not always intentional. Multiplestudies have traced known cases not to willful deception but to clerical errors or confusion.

For example, one case of a dead person voting (Alan J. Mandell) happened because a poll worker accidentally marked his name instead of the man who actually cast the ballot, Alan J. Mandel. Similarly, in one of just five cases of a noncitizen voting between 2000 and 2004, a permanent resident was told he was eligible and given a voter registration form by a DMV clerk when renewing his license.

So, given the rarity of occurrence, the lack of intent, and a federal penalty of a $10,000 fine or up to five years in prison, experts say it would be extremely difficult to rig an election through the ways Trump has suggested.

"I'd like to see him try to vote 10 times on Election Day. It would be virtually impossible and a knuckle-headed way to try to corrupt an election," said Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Rutgers University who wrote The Myth of Voter Fraud.  

To sway an election, an army of voters would have to visit multiple polling locations each, know the names and addresses of the people they were impersonating and produce fake ID’s or forge their signatures — plus be willing to commit perjury the entire time.

"Campaigns don’t pay people to pretend to be people they’re not. That’s too stupid," said Mary Frances Barry, former chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and author of Five Dollars and a Pork Chop Sandwich, a book about electoral fraud.

How to rig an election

From New York’s Tammany Hall to the motto of "vote early and often" popularized in Chicago, election fraud is certainly part of U.S. political history. But election rigging today is constrained to local elections, as implementing a national election heist would be extremely difficult.

"Given the decentralized nature of our elections, there would be no single way to throw the results," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. "Instead you’d have to target enough states to make a difference in the Electoral College."

The first way is through buying votes, especially absentee ballots.

Barry’s Five Dollars and a Pork Chop Sandwich, which refers to the prize a Louisiana woman received for her vote, documents several cases of local campaigns and political machines purchasing votes, often from nursing homes and poor communities, in exchange for cash, whiskey or a paved driveway.

This is possible on a small scale because of a "corrupt deal" between local election officials and "family fiefdoms" with deep roots in municipal politics, Barry said.

Presidential elections, on the other hand, are under much more scrutiny than sheriff races and subject to federal prosecution. For that reason, and given how complicated organizing the conspiracy across different communities would be, Barry says it’s not probable that a national campaign or outside group would take the risk to buy a few votes.

The second way of rigging elections is through tampering with voting machines (looking at you, Olivia Pope of Scandal). Trump suggested this in 2012 when he warned that machines were switching Romney votes to Obama.

"That’s not an indication of the system being rigged. That’s an indication that it’s lost its calibration," said Pamela Smith of Verified Voting, which monitors technological issues in elections.

She added that Trump likely was referring to voter reports of this common issue of overuse, while election rigging "would require you not noticing." (Smith couldn’t think of any examples of machines being tampered with and said, from her research, issues usually result from programming errors.)

Ballots cast on some electronic voting systems, however, don’t have a paper trail, meaning the votes are not verifiable. Hackers could theoretically alter the results. But this would also require a potential wrongdoer to physically access the machines on Election Day and serious coordination to circumvent all the security and auditing measures in place before, during and after voting, said Smith, adding, "There are very few paths in the present scenario to flip something off the radar."

There’s the added security of Pennsylvania law, which mandates post-election vote audits of randomly selected precincts. The majority of precincts in Virginia rely on paper ballots. And Florida, where use of electronic machines is fairly limited to providing accessibility for voters with disabilities, has a Republican governor (Gov. Rick Scott, a Trump supporter) and secretary of state (who oversees elections).

"Technological rigging or the more classic stuffing of the ballot box are not the kind of things that could be easily done or on the kind of scale that could affect an election," Hasen said. "Trump’s unsupported allegations are dangerous and fantasy."

Our ruling

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. election system is rigged.

He has cited examples of voter fraud, which is extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election.

While there are isolated examples of bought local elections, experts say it cannot be replicated on a national scale. While it is possible to tamper with electronic voting machines, there is no evidence deliberate malfeasance has altered any election.

We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire.

=======================

About this statement:

Published: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 3:01 p.m.

Researched by: Linda Qiu

Edited by: Katie Sanders

Subjects: Elections

Sources:

Twitter, Donald Trump, 2012-2016

Philadelphia Inquirer, "In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes," Nov. 4, 2015

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws, Sept. 2014

PolitiFact Texas, "Light a match to Greg Abbott's ridiculous claim about 'rampant voter fraud'," March 17, 2016

PolitiFact Wisconsin, "Which happens more: People struck by lightning or people committing voter fraud by impersonation?," April; 7, 2016

News 21, "Comprehensive Database of U.S. Voter Fraud Uncovers No Evidence That Photo ID Is Needed," Aug. 12, 2012

New York Times, "Questions and Answers on Voter Fraud," Aug. 5, 2016

Washington Post, "7 papers, 4 government inquiries, 2 news investigations and 1 court ruling proving voter fraud is mostly a myth," July 9, 2014

Washington Post, "Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible," Aug. 5, 2016

New York Times, "In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud," April 12, 2007

Harpers, "How to rig an election," November 2012

Wired, "America’s Electronic Voting Machines Are Scarily Easy Targets," Aug. 2, 2016

Interview with Richard Hasen, law professor at the University of California, Irvine, Aug. 10, 2016

Interview with Lorraine Minnite, political science professor at Rutgers University who wrote The Myth of Voter Fraud, Aug. 10, 2016

Interview with Mary Frances Barry, former chairwoman of the U.S Commission on Civil Rights and author of Five Dollars and a Pork Chop Sandwich, Aug. 10, 2016

Email interview with Bryan Whitener, spokesperson for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Aug. 11, 2016

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Trump campaign chair misquotes Russian media in bogus claim about NATO base terrorist attack

=================================

Our ruling

The event Manafort described did not happen. 

We rate Manafort’s claim Pants on Fire!

 

Manafort said there was a "NATO base in Turkey being under attack by terrorists" the week Trump made his comments about "Second Amendment people."

Russian media speculated that there was a second attempted coup at Incirlik air base in Turkey. That incident was exaggerated and occurred two weeks before Trump’s comments. Furthermore, though it houses NATO troops, Incirlik is not a NATO base. Neither Incirlik or NATO’s central headquarters in Izmir, Turkey, have been attacked by terrorists.

The event Manafort described did not happen. 

We rate Manafort’s claim Pants on Fire!

=================================

Donald Trump’s comments about "Second Amendment people" doing something to stop Hillary Clinton continued to dog his campaign in interviews on the Sunday news shows.

But when CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper brought up Trump’s seeming inability to stay on message, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort insisted it’s the press who can’t lay off of Trump.

"I mean, there's plenty of news to cover this week that I haven't seen covered," Manafort said Aug. 14. "You had the NATO base in Turkey being under attack by terrorists. You had a number of things that were appropriate to this campaign, were part of what Mr. Trump has been talking about. ... Instead, you took an aside that the Clinton narrative told you was something, Mr. Trump told you he didn't mean, and you played it out for two days."

We hadn’t seen the terrorist attack covered either and wondered if the media had neglected a major story in order to wax on about Trump’s comments.

Indeed, reputable news outlets didn’t cover this story — because it didn’t happen as Manafort said.

Manafort seems to be fumbling an errant story from Russian state media.

The weekend of July 30, RT.com and Sputnik reported 7,000 armed police with heavy vehicles had surrounded Incirlik air base in Adana, Turkey, where 2,500 U.S. troops are stationed and some 50 U.S. nuclear weapons are stored.

The two Kremlin-funded outlets suggested that the lockdown was in response to another coup attempt after a faction of the Turkish military failed to overthrow Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

So already Manafort is wrong about two key points: The incident occurred two weeks before Trump’s Second Amendment remarks and did not involve terrorists.

What’s more, the Russian outlets’ reports were not exactly reliable.

There were anti-U.S. demonstrations outside of Incirlik the night before the maneuver, but Turkish authorities said these were small and largely peaceful. They also dismissed speculation of a second coup and explained that police were conducting safety inspections in preparation for a top U.S. military official’s visit, according to Stars and Stripes and Bloomberg.

"It does appear that RT and Sputnik exaggerated their stories. Perhaps Putin was attempting to inflame emotions between Turkey and America. Which is certainly believable," said the conservative blog Right Scoop.

Granted, Incirlik’s stockpile of nuclear weapons has been a cause for concern, especially after the July 15 coup. Media reports have also documented how the internal Turkish struggle caused some logistical headaches for U.S. troops stationed at Incirlik (including, for example, power outages).

But that’s a far cry from a terrorist attack that flew under the news radar.

Officials at the Pentagon and NATO told us there have been no terrorist attacks at Incirlik or NATO’s Allied Central Command (LANDCOM) in Izmir, Turkey. The NATO official also pointed out that Incirlik is actually not a NATO base, though U.S. and Spanish troops are stationed there.

Our ruling

Manafort said there was a "NATO base in Turkey being under attack by terrorists" the week Trump made his comments about "Second Amendment people."

Russian media speculated that there was a second attempted coup at Incirlik air base in Turkey. That incident was exaggerated and occurred two weeks before Trump’s comments. Furthermore, though it houses NATO troops, Incirlik is not a NATO base. Neither Incirlik or NATO’s central headquarters in Izmir, Turkey, have been attacked by terrorists.

The event Manafort described did not happen. 

We rate Manafort’s claim Pants on Fire!

===============================

About this statement:

Published: Tuesday, August 16th, 2016 at 5:30 p.m.

Researched by: Linda Qiu

Edited by: Katie Sanders

Subjects: Foreign Policy, Terrorism

Sources:

FM

Donald Trump off in saying Hillary Clinton wants illegal immigrants to take U.S. jobs

==============================

Our rating

We rate the statement False. 

Trump says Clinton is "proposing to print instant work permits for millions of illegal immigrants to come in and take everybody's jobs, including low-income African-Americans."

Clinton would "staple" green cards to the diplomas of foreign students in the United States who complete master’s or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering or math, extending their stay so that they could work in the U.S., particularly in high-tech jobs, after graduation rather than returning home.

The green cards would be available to students who are already legally in the United States. And given their level of education and expertise, they would not be taking jobs of low-income Americans. Nor is the program aimed at millions of students.

We rate the statement False. 

==============================

Donald Trump campaigned in West Bend, Wis., on Aug. 16, 2016. (Rick Wood photo)

On a campaign visit to West Bend, Wis., on Aug. 16, 2016, Donald Trump hit one of his favorite topics -- immigration -- and one of his favorite targets -- Hillary Clinton.

Trump tried to reach out to African-American voters with various attacks on Clinton, including this one:

"Now she's proposing to print instant work permits for millions of illegal immigrants to come in and take everybody's jobs, including low-income African-Americans."

Trump’s reference, however, is to advanced-degree international students who are legally in the United States -- and who are trained for top jobs in technology and science.

Trump’s evidence

To back Trump’s claim, his campaign pointed to this statement from the technology policy part of Clinton's campaign website:

Our immigration system is plagued by visa backlogs and other barriers that prevent high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs from coming to, staying in, and creating jobs in America. Far too often, we require talented persons from other countries who are trained in U.S. universities to return home, rather than stay in here and continue to contribute to our economy. As part of a comprehensive immigration solution, Hillary would "staple" a green card to STEM masters and PhDs from accredited institutions—enabling international students who complete degrees in these fields to move to green card status.

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.

The Trump campaign also cited a Breitbart.com article published June 28, 2016, the day Clinton released the plan. The "staple" proposal would mean, the conservative site claimed, "university-trained foreign labor will drown the lifetime wages and career prospects of her college-indebted American supporters."

Even that criticism refers to jobs sought by college graduates, not jobs held by people with low incomes.

Other views

Paula Dwyer, an economics columnist for Bloomberg, explained in a column that the automatic green card Clinton proposes would grant foreign graduates permanent U.S. residence and work visas. Dwyer noted that such proposals have had bipartisan support while also raising some concerns -- though not the type Trump raised.

She wrote:

President Barack Obama suggested the stapled green card in his first term, as did Mitt Romney in his 2012 presidential campaign. Silicon Valley executives have long advocated it to address what they claim is a shortage of qualified high-tech workers ….

Clinton says it makes no sense for the U.S. to invest in the education of some of the world's smartest people, only to send them back to India, China and other countries to start companies and compete against the U.S. But critics of the influx of foreign students to the U.S. warn that, without safeguards, the policy would turn U.S. colleges into green-card factories that crowd out American students, drive down salaries and discourage U.S.-born students from STEM careers.

So, there are some concerns about extending the stay of international students, who are not illegal immigrants but are studying in the U.S. on temporary visas.

Regardless, these master’s and doctoral graduates in science, technology, engineering and math are not threats to jobs held by low-income workers.

There’s also no evidence that Clinton’s proposal would apply to millions of people. The government’s latest quarterly report says 478,851 international students were studying in STEM fields at U.S. universities as of March 2016. And, of course, not all of them pursue advanced degrees or will want to remain in the U.S. after finishing their studies.    

Our rating

Trump says Clinton is "proposing to print instant work permits for millions of illegal immigrants to come in and take everybody's jobs, including low-income African-Americans."

Clinton would "staple" green cards to the diplomas of foreign students in the United States who complete master’s or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering or math, extending their stay so that they could work in the U.S., particularly in high-tech jobs, after graduation rather than returning home.

The green cards would be available to students who are already legally in the United States. And given their level of education and expertise, they would not be taking jobs of low-income Americans. Nor is the program aimed at millions of students.

We rate the statement False. 

 

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 12:13 p.m.

Researched by: Tom Kertscher

Edited by: Katie Sanders

Subjects: Education, Immigration, Technology

Sources:

YouTube, Donald Trump speech (25:00), Aug. 16, 2016

Email, Donald Trump policy assistant Robert Gabriel, Aug. 17, 2016

Email, Hillary Clinton campaign spokeswoman Gillian Drummond, Aug. 17, 2016

HillaryClinton.com, "Hillary Clinton’s Initiative on Technology & Innovation," accessed Aug. 17, 2016

U.S. News & World Report, "Hillary Clinton Makes Tech Key to Her Economic Plan," June 28, 2016

Breitbart.com, "Hillary Clinton’s Vow To College Grads: I’ll Outsource Your Jobs To Foreign Graduates," June 28, 2016

Bloomberg, "Give Green Cards to Tech Graduates? Yes, But Take Care," July 7, 2016

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Student and Exchange Visitor Program quarterly report, March 2016

FM

Mostly False on Clinton Foundation

 

Mostly False
Castellanos
"The Clinton Foundation gives less than 10 (percent in direct aid). In 2013, they raised 140 million bucks, gave $9 million to people in direct aid."

Alex Castellanos on Sunday, September 4th, 2016 in a panel on Meet the Press

FM

Trump surrogate repeats wrong talking point on Clinton Foundation giving

====================

Our ruling

We rate Castellanos’ claim Mostly False.

Castellanos said, "The Clinton Foundation gives less than 10 (percent in direct aid). In 2013, they raised 140 million bucks, gave $9 million to people in direct aid."

Castellanos is cherry-picking one line-item that doesn't include all of the foundation's spending on charity. While outside grantmaking made up about 10 percent of its expenses in 2013, the foundation spent about $68 million, or about 80 percent, on in-house charitable programs to help those in need.

We rate Castellanos’ claim Mostly False.

====================

Surrogates for Donald Trump continue to make the argument that the Clinton Foundation is a "slush fund" for Bill and Hillary Clinton, and they keep repeating an inaccurate talking point.

While discussing on Meet the Press why Trump has yet to release his tax returns, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos turned the tables, saying that the nonprofit bearing Clinton’s name doesn’t do much except enrich her family.

"Because that idea that somehow the Clinton Foundation is this wonderful thing that helps people, most charities give 75 percent of their money in direct aid. The Clinton Foundation gives less than 10 (percent). In 2013, they raised 140 million bucks, gave 9 million to people in direct aid," Castellanos said.

We’ve heard various versions of this claim (from former GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and RNC chairman Reince Priebus). It’s misleading.

Castellanos’ numbers don’t take into account the bulk of the foundation's work. The foundation does spend a lot of money on charity, not through grantmaking, but through its own programming. 

Tax returns show the Clinton Foundation raised just under $143 million and spent about $85 million, including $9 million in grants to other organizations. But that does not include all of the foundation's charitable work

"Grantmaking is not part of its mission, and that creates confusion — since many people imagine that foundations are engaged in giving away money," writes David Callahan, editor of Inside Philanthropy.

Despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not actually a private foundation (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the Donald J. Trump Foundation) that solely gives to philanthropic causes. Rather, it’s a public charity, like United Way or the Salvation Army, that runs its own in-house projects and hires staff to carry out the work.

Clinton Foundation programs include providing women in Peru with the tools and equipment to launch their own businesses, installing solar panels and grids in Haiti after the earthquake, helping farmers in Tanzania boost yields and turn a profit, and using market mechanisms to reduce the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine.

All together, these programs cost $68 million in 2013 (page 10 of the foundation’s tax documents for that year), or about 80 percent of all of the foundation's expenses that year. In 2014, programs were 87 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenses, according to Charity Navigator, giving it a score of 10 out of 10 on that metric.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown of the foundation’s 2013 expenses:

[img]https://infogr.am/c3e08b06-a8d...96-833d-560236bbbd29[/img]

 

In sum, Castellanos’ claim is "totally wrong," Callahan of Inside Philanthropy told PolitiFact. "The vast majority of the money raised goes to support program work in the field, as anyone can tell from looking at the Clinton Foundation’s annual finances."

Castellanos did not respond to requests for comment.

Our ruling

Castellanos said, "The Clinton Foundation gives less than 10 (percent in direct aid). In 2013, they raised 140 million bucks, gave $9 million to people in direct aid."

Castellanos is cherry-picking one line-item that doesn't include all of the foundation's spending on charity. While outside grantmaking made up about 10 percent of its expenses in 2013, the foundation spent about $68 million, or about 80 percent, on in-house charitable programs to help those in need.

We rate Castellanos’ claim Mostly False.

 

About this statement:

Published: Tuesday, September 6th, 2016 at 5:08 p.m.

Researched by: Louis Jacobson, Linda Qiu, Aaron Sharockman

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Candidate Biography

Sources:

NBC, Meet the Press, Sept. 4, 2016

FactCheck.Org, "Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?," June 19, 2015

PolitiFact, "Reince Priebus' False claim that 80% of Clinton Foundation costs are overhead," Aug. 25, 2016

PolitiFact, "Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead," April 29, 2015

Inside Philanthropy, "What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?" June 23, 2016

PolitiFact, "Clinton: Clinton Foundation helped 9 million with lower-cost AIDS drugs," June 15, 2016

PolitiFact, "In Tanzania, Clinton Foundation trades on maize and beans, not name," Sept 6, 2016

Clinton Foundation, Form 990, 2013

Charity Navigator, "The Clinton Foundation," accessed Sept. 6, 2016

Email interview with Josh Schwerin, spokesman for Hillary Clinton, Sept. 6, 2016

Email interview with Brian Cookstra, spokesman for the Clinton Foundation, Sept. 6, 2016

Email interview with David Callahan, editor of Inside Philanthropy, Sept. 6, 2016

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×