Fact Check Devastates Trump As His First Ad Averages 1 Lie Every 4 Seconds

None of his ads has anything to do with election rigging so the election rigging "fact-checking" that you applied to Trump's first ad in the OP is a bold faced lie intended to smear Trump's ad.

 

A dishonest campaign ad? I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

- - - Updated - - -

Figures. imyoda is a tireless anti-Republican propagandist.

 

Ut-Oh - That's bad!

Brace yourself!

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/bipartisan.gif

 

IS even if that is so..............(which it is not)

SO WHAT.................BTW

There are 3 Trump ads playing............

Only one refers to "rigging"............ and is not the subject to the Politifact findings........

BTW

Have you even seen any................less 3 of these ads............

 

The claim made in the OP and in the title of this thread about Trump's first ad is a lie.

 

Not a tireless anti- Republican propagandist..........

I am a life long registered member of the Republican Party who abhors dishonesty, cheating and RW lies and distortions........

 

So you're in Clinton's camp now, because you abhor dishonesty, cheating, lies, distortions...Makes perfect sense in some alternative universe, I am sure LOL

 

Don't care because:

1 - Your candidate is Hilary, the most corrupt and dishonest person ever, so you have zero credibility.

2 - All your "sources" support Hilary, the most corrupt and dishonest person ever, so they have zero credibility.

3 - No matter what Trump has done, even if he has done all the things you people accuse him of doing, Hilary (the most corrupt and dishonest person ever) is far worse.

 

Trump is apparently developing an immunity to negative attacks. He has pulled ahead of Clinton in the latest LAT/USC daily tracking poll. See Drudge or:

lat.com/politics/

The RP/DP/MSM attacks have failed to knock Trump out. What else have they got?

 

It is the ultimate irony when a Hillary supporter accuses her opponent of lying.

 

That kinda looks like Trump.

 

SO WHAT............How do you know if that is so..............You a mind reader...........

I just do not care for RW lies............and look to expose them............

As to Clinton........if I find BS posts from her camp of merit from reliable and responsible news outlets...............I go after them also.......

But the times are few and far between..........

And if it is an alternative universe.....It would be called heaven..........

Resting in peace you cannot prove mush of anything wrong..........

How do like them cookies pal

- - - Updated - - -

OK by me.........

If you wish to vote for the worst liar of the bunch.........

Be mu guest........

But thanks for your opinion

 

Ain't no way The Donald has ever lied as much or would sell us down the river like Hillary.
All Hillary wants is power.Deny her.
The laws of the world say that whatever bad you do,you get it back twofold.Watch what happens to Hillary.It's going to implode.Mark my words.

 

I'm not voting for Hilary.

- - - Updated - - -

Possibly. But if she becomes President and then implodes, it could take down the entire country.

 

Americans don't want that happening.Most of us believe in God and country.Black,white,Chinese,all of us love the American Dream.
(Not Dusty Rhodes) The real thing.We love Dusty Rhodes too,those of us that are American.We can appreciate the razor-blade forehead slittings and whatnot.

 

I would never think poorly of you voting for Trump...........that's what democracy is all about.......

BUT PLEAS TELL US..........

How would her election bring the country down?

 

Paid shill, more likely.

 

She wants to keep open borders with Mexico.That=fail.
She will vote for TPP which= NAFTA 2.0 That also = fail.
And she'll probably start a war.I say Chelsea should lead the brigade!
There's more,but not now.
Ok now.She'll continue graft,illegal insider trading by Congress,legal bribery via lobbying, and do what those that have paid her want instead of representing the people.
Is that enough? Those are ways she will bring the country down.

 

Hahahaha! That kinda looks like Politifact under there...

Politifact is like the Onion. Everyone knows they are a farce and front for Democrats

Politifact, in its analysis of the Uranium One/Rosatom/State Department story first reported by the New York Times and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash, ignores numerous key facts, conflates opinion for fact, deemphasizes other key facts, makes 13 errors, declares an incomplete donor record as complete, and takes the word of a major Clinton Foundation donor who has a demonstrable record of deceiving media outlets about basic facts in this deal. All of these errors curiously redound to the benefit of Hillary Clinton.

Politifact uses the opinion of Jeffrey Lewis to suggest that National Security implications of this deal were not serious. “Russia’s purchase of the company ‘had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire,’ said Lewis. ‘That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC) approved it.’”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: The ranking members of the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Financial Services, and Homeland Security wrote a 1,276-word letter expressing their “great concerns” about the deal and asked the Obama Administration to block it. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming, the state in which Uranium One’s flagship US property exists, also wrote the Obama Administration expressing his serious concerns about the deal.

Politifact completely ignores the fact that State Department cables raised questions and concerns about Russian attempts to corner the world uranium markets, specifically the mines in Kazakhstan involving Uranium One.

...................

Politifact Claim: “For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, ‘so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases.’ The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: Politifact ignores the facts presented by the New York Times which completely contradicts and undermines this statement. Specifically, that uranium has been exported by Uranium One since the acquisition:

“Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license.”

...........................

Politifact Claim: Only one Clinton Foundation donor [Ian Telfer] was a major shareholder in Uranium One at the time of the State Department review. ”Using SEDAR, Canada’s filing system for public companies, we could only verify one UrAsia shareholder (Ian Telfer) who also owned stocks in Uranium One in 2010 and who chaired its Board of Directors. A New York Times investigation on the topic linked two others to Uranium One… So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: Clinton Foundation donor Frank Holmes was a shareholder in Uranium One through his fund US Global Investors as late as 2011. See the SEC’s Uranium One disclosure. See also the New York Times‘ reporting on this matter.

....................

Politifact Claim: “On the contrary, the donations detailed by author Schweizer occurred at least two years before the deal.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: Politifact failed to report that ARMZ’s June 2009 purchase of %17 of Uranium One also required a CFIUS review – one that was completed in November 2009. This can be seen on page 16 of Uranium One’s third quarter Management Discussion & Analysis.

........................

Politifact Claim: “Russia didn’t get involved until two years later, in June 2009, when its nuclear agency started buying shares in Uranium One. The Kremlin upped its stake in the company from 17 percent to a controlling 51 percent the following year, and assumed total ownership of the company in 2013 (and renamed it to Uranium One Holding).”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: ARMZ, the Rosatom subsidiary that made the three stage Uranium purchase, began discussions in July 2008.

See page 10 of this ARMZ presentation on the history of the ARMZ/Uranium One merger:

These two facts show the following. For nearly two years before the mid-2010 timeframe, both Uranium One’s shareholders and executives, as well as officials at Rosatom/ARMZ, were contemplating and then executing transactions covered by CFIUS. This brings many of the donations and the negotiations and transactions under question within a year of each other.

.........................

Politifact Claim: “So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: As we have seen already the history of negotiations for the Russian purchase of Uranium One extends back to at least July 2008. This purchase was always going to include a CFIUS review because of Uranium One’s U.S. Properties. But Politifact omits another salient and widely reported point to make this claim. Throughout the piece, Politifact consistently and repeatedly acts as if the Clinton Foundation donation records are complete. This assumption is not only sloppy journalism, but runs completely contrary to the facts, as has been reported by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Indeed, as has been widely reported, we still don’t know from Canadian donors the full amounts and actual names of all the contributors. Specifically, donations from Sergey Kurzin, who is highlighted in the piece, still have not been completely reported by the Clinton Foundation. In fact, Mr. Giustra admitted to Bloomberg that Mr. Kurzin and one of Mr. Kurzin’s companies, Dragon Capital, were undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation. Again, these are easily verifiable facts that have been widely reported, are central to Politifacts narrative, yet completely ignored.

......................

Politifact Claim: Politifact Claim: “Most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: The absurdity of this statement boggles the mind. Of course she could not know she would be Secretary of State. She was planning to be president, and her donors had the same expectation. Why these donors would be happier knowing she was Secretary of State than believing she would be president of the United States is a truly bizarre assumption. Politifact should know that while the State Department must review and sign off on any CFIUS transaction, the president has final authority.

........

Politifact Claim: Politifact implies that all interested parties in the deal other than Ian Telfer gave money prior to the deal in 2010: “So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: Renaissance Capital, a company staffed by connected Russian officials, pays Bill for a speech in June 2010.

Renaissance Capital is the very definition of “involved with.” As has been repeatedly reported, Renaissance Capital was pushing Uranium One stock at the time and is closely tied to the Russian government.

Politifact never even mentions this payment despite the fact that it was reported not only by Clinton Cash but confirmed by the New York Times and the New Yorker.

Clearly, this is more than “one man involved with Uranium One.”

......

Politifact Claim: One caveat: The New York Times found that Ian Telfer donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.

Rating - FALSE

FACT: Ian Telfer’s donation was reported in Clinton Cash. Politifact never mentions the fact that these donations were never reported by the Clinton Foundation. An important fact, given that this story is about the possibility of quid pro quo or conflicts of interest.

...................

Politifact Claim: “Furthermore, the bulk of the $145 million comes from Frank Giustra, the founder of UrAsia Energy and a major Clinton Foundation donor. Guistra says he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, ‘at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State’ and three years before the Russian deal.”

Rating - FALSE

FACT: Ms. Qiu takes Mr. Giustra at his word that he was no longer a shareholder after late-2007. Is he telling the truth? Who knows. But it would seem important for Ms. Qiu to point out that Mr. Giustra has not been honest when asked about the details of this story before. For example, Mr. Giustra denied to New York Times reporters that he had arranged a 2007 meeting between the senior Kazakh nuclear official and Bill Clinton. Only after being presented with a photograph of the meeting did Mr. Giustra admit his role in the meeting.

Also, this shows a multi-million dollar donor to the Foundation was the head of the company that was bought by Russia. And Hillary’s State Department approved the deal without disclosing the conflict, a fact confirmed by the New York Times.

.......................

And it goes on and on and on. Error after error after error all redounding in the same direction to spin for Hillary all while assuming the aura of an "Independent Fact-Checker". These guys are scum. You might as well cite the Onion.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...3-errors-in-a-single-clinton-cash-fact-check/

 

Ok,I'll take your word for it.

 

Doesn't change their votes. Hillary's negatives far exceed her level of support. People already distrust her. Another ad saying she cannot be trusted isn't going to change that if left-wink wonks want to fact check.

 

Hillary Clinton is a paragon of honesty. Now I've heard it all.

 

Nice try at misquoting. I Said compared to Trump just in case you can't actually read. You must be learning intellectual honesty from Trump.

 

Do you realize that YOU could check facts if you wanted to do so?

 

You are absolutly correct. Not sure though whether it was the Op that lied or if the OP was just fooled by the link which clearly did the fraud. That Will teach me not to go to all the links in an OP.

That said of course Trump has claimed that the electoral system is crooked and that has actually been responsibly fact checked as false.