Round Three: Fact Checking Hillary Since the Mainstream Media Won’t!

17 US Intelligence agencies did not say Russia hacked Democrat’s emails.

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.
What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks
. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.

Full article: 17 US Intelligence agencies did not say Russia hacked Democrat’s emails

Yes, Hillary Clinton campaign used activists to disrupt Trump rallies

James O’Keefe’s recent video sting with Project Veritas revealed that contractors for the Hillary Clinton campaign used trained activists — in some cases paid, in other cases volunteers — to disrupt Donald Trump rallies. The activists were used to “cause fights,” as Trump said, with the goal of creating “anarchy” around the candidate. 

Trump went a bit too far in describing the tactic, however. He said:

Just like if you look at what came out today on the clips where I was wondering what happened with my rally in Chicago and other rallies where we had such violence? She’s the one and Obama that caused the violence. They hired people — they paid them $1,500, and they’re on tape saying be violent, cause fights, do bad things.

And I’ll tell you what, in particular in Chicago, people were hurt and people could have been killed in that riot. 

It is important to note that the activists were not told to “be violent,” but rather to incite violence. And the figure of $1,500 appears to refer to one case, not to the general tactic used.

Full article: Yes, Hillary Clinton campaign used activists to disrupt Trump rallies

No, the Clinton Foundation did not spend 90% of money donated on “programs.”

Indeed, Clinton’s “ninety percent” claim is false according to her troubled charity’s own tax filings.

Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large, and author of Clinton Cash said the Clinton Foundation has spent as little as six percent of its total income on actual charitable endeavors.

“If you actually look at the numbers of their filings and 990s, that’s what it indicates,” Schweizer said last month in an interview with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Breitbart News Daily. “The Clinton Foundation will say, ‘We assisted or facilitated in 100,000 kids getting immunizations.’ Well, okay, what does that mean? And they don’t really tell you. They don’t really explain to you how it works.”

“So the number is absolutely correct, that six percent goes to other charities,” Schweizer continued. “The other 94 percent is in this stew of marketing, and management, and travel expenses, and sort of all these obscure things, that it’s really hard to dissect what is the end result of that 94 percent being spent.”

Full article: No, the Clinton Foundation did not spend 90% of money donated on “programs.”

33,000 people die each year from gun homicide: false.

She opened up the debate with a pretty major lie.

She said 33,000 people die each year from gun homicide.

That’s a lie.

Dana Loesch was all over it.

 Clinton cites 33k a year homicide from guns. False. 3/4 suicide number #debatenight

She is pretending she supports the 2nd Amendment.

That couldn’t be further from the truth.

She has made it clear she thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong on the 2nd Amendment.

Full article: Hillary tells major lie about gun crime during debate

No, Obama did not cut deficit by 2/3.

During the third presidential debate, Hillary Clinton praised President Obama’s economic performance, adding: “He has cut the deficit by two-thirds.”

Fact-Check: FALSE

This repeated Democratic canard relies on fraudulent accounting that only starts more than halfway through Obama’s first year in office, after the $862 billion stimulus, the massive omnibus spending bill (“porkulus”), and the deployment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was signed by Obama’s predecessor but for which he voted.

As Breitbart News noted when President Obama claimed in January to have cut the deficit by “almost three-quarters”:

This is pure fiction. Obama has doubled the national debt, and it’s not because he cut the deficit. Rather, he spent staggering amounts of money in his first months in office–which he assigns, dishonestly, to the previous fiscal year, under George W. Bush. He “cut” (i.e. spent more gradually) from that spending, but only under protest, after Republicans took the House in 2010.

Full article: No, Obama did not cut deficit by 2/3

No, Hillary Clinton, The Supreme Court’s Heller Decision Wasn’t About Toddlers

During the final presidential debate on Wednesday night, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told another unbelievable whopper about the country’s gun laws. In her answer to a question about her views on gun rights, Clinton said she opposed the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which recognized the constitutional right for individuals to own and carry firearms, because it was about whether toddlers should have guns.

Yes, she said that.

So what was the Heller case really about? It was about whether Dick Anthony Heller, a 66-year-old police officer, should be legally allowed to own and bear a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home. That’s it. Here’s how the Supreme Court described the facts of the case:

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Full article: No, Hillary Clinton, The Supreme Court’s Heller Decision Wasn’t About Toddlers

More: Eight Hillary Lies Debunked

Advertisements

Comments are closed.