Donald Trump’s campaign is in meltdown. During a completely unhinged rally tonight, Trump showed up 102 minutes late and delivered a rambling stream of schoolyard insults and outright lies. And that wasn’t the worst of it. As Trump called on voters to ‘follow the money,” The New York Times released a devastating report about how he could have avoided paying any federal income taxes for years. How ironic. It looks like Trump’s decades of bullying, lying and cheating might have finally caught up to him.
TRUMP’S TOP LIES IN MANHEIM:
LIE #1: TRUMP LIES ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S POSITION ON TPP
THE LIE: TRUMP: “Clinton, if she ever got the chance, would 100% approve the Trans Pacific Partnership.” (Manheim, PA, 10/1/16)
THE TRUTH: Hillary Clinton opposes Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Hillary Clinton said Wednesday she opposes the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, marking a significant break with the Obama Administration as she heads into the first Democratic presidential debate.
LIE #2: TRUMP LIES AGAIN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S POSITION ON TPP
THE LIE: TRUMP: “She is on the opposite side of Bernie on the trade issue. She is totally in the opposite side.” (Manheim, PA, 10/1/16)
THE TRUTH: Hillary Clinton opposes Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Hillary Clinton said Wednesday she opposes the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, marking a significant break with the Obama Administration as she heads into the first Democratic presidential debate.
LIE #3: TRUMP FALSELY CLAIMS THAT HILLARY CLINTON UNLEASHED ISIS
THE LIE: TRUMP: “Her policies created ISIS, now remember the way she got out of Iraq left a tremendous vacuum out of which ISIS was formed.”” (Manheim, PA, 10/1/16)
THE TRUTH: Washington Post Fact Checker said Donald Trump’s claim that ISIS rose from Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s policies was “false and facile.”
‘The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.’ This is false and facile. The terrorist group is the direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as we explored in our interview with Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the rise of the Islamic State. (Trump, of course, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.) At best, one could argue that actions that Obama failed to take (over Clinton’s opposition) helped contribute to the growth of ISIS.
Washington Post: ISIS gained power because of “a complex dynamic that both pre-dates and post-dates [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure as secretary of state.”
This is a carefully phrased statement — note the use of the word ‘helped’ — that tries to pin the blame on Clinton for a complex dynamic that both pre-dates and post-dates her tenure as secretary of state. To a large extent, the Islamic State of today is simply an outgrowth of al-Qaeda of Iraq. It was established in April 2004 by longtime Sunni extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to the National Counterterrorism Center. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in 2006, and afterward his successor announced the formation of the Islamic State — more than two years before George W. Bush left office. The Islamic State certainly gained strength and territory from the civil war in Syria, but Clinton as secretary of state had pressed to funnel arms to the rebels; she was rebuffed by the president.
LIE #4: TRUMP LIES ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON WANTING TO PUT MINERS OUT OF BUSINESS
THE LIE: TRUMP: “And we will take care of our miners where Hillary Clinton said she wants to put our mines and our miners out of business.” (Manheim, PA, 10/1/16)
THE TRUTH: Washington Post Fact Checker: Hillary Clinton’s line about coal communities “has been spun out of context…and used as a soundbite. It was part of her longer answer about helping coal mine workers.”
Pence’s attack on Hillary Clinton’s claim about coal jobs is another example of taking a statement out of context. During a March 2016 town hall in Ohio, Clinton was asked by a voter: ’Make the case to poor whites who live in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, who vote Republican, why they should vote for you based upon economic policies versus voting for a Republican?’ Clinton gave a lengthy response, which included the line, ‘We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.’ But that line has been spun out of context since then and used as a soundbite. It was part of her longer answer about helping coal mine workers adjust after they lose their factory jobs.
Washington Post: Hillary Clinton “proposed ideas to help improve coal workers’ health and retirement security, and to help with economic development in coal communities.”
Her lengthy answer in March 2016 was consistent with themes in her November 2015 policy proposal for revitalizing coal communities. The proposal says that transitioning away from coal-powered plants has already affected mining communities like in Appalachia. Clinton supports the Obama administration’s clean energy plan, and proposed ideas to help improve coal workers’ health and retirement security, and to help with economic development in coal communities.
FactCheck.org: Hillary Clinton made a “promise to create new jobs for communities hurt by the shift away from coal.”
Her critics focused on a part of her response in which she said, ‘we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.’ But she said more than that. Sullivan and Capito ignore her promise to create new jobs for communities hurt by the shift away from coal.
FactCheck.org: Hillary Clinton “promised to bring renewable energy jobs to coal country to replace lost coal jobs.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia took Clinton’s words on coal-mining jobs out of context. Sullivan claimed that Clinton ‘promised’ to ‘target’ coal miners and oil drillers for ‘extinction.’ Capito said Clinton ‘promised to devastate communities and families across coal country.’ Clinton has said she wants to ‘move away from coal,’ but added, ‘we don’t want to forget those people.’ She promised to bring renewable energy jobs to coal country to replace lost coal jobs.
Yet within hours of publication, the article came under withering criticism from leading political reporters. TPM’s Josh Marshall called the report “tendentious verging on dishonest.” Veteran Washington journalist Jonathan Allen said “I’m still trying to figure out what’s shady/murky/troublesome about WJC aides being paid out of multiple pots for multiple functions.” The Boston Globe’s Michael Cohen tweeted that “the only blurring of lines here is being done by Politico.”
Politico has already been forced to change their headline. Yet major errors remain uncorrected in the article.
Here are the facts: the Politico story falsely insinuated that taxpayer funding was used to “support [Clinton’s] wife’s private email server” and subsidize his foundation. This is incorrect. Taxpayer funds were never used for an email server for either of the Clintons. When General Services Administration funding (which is allocated to every former president) was used, it was to pay for a database and server equipment for President Clinton’s correspondence and to compensate Clinton Foundation staff when they are specifically assisting Clinton in his capacity as a former president. As the GSA itself has noted, this is a common practice for all ex-presidents and their staffs.
Bill Clinton’s staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.
This headline is egregiously false. Server hosting HRC’s email during State tenure was paid for w/personal fundshttps://t.co/FblUHKlOhQ
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) September 1, 2016
No GSA funding was ever used for a private e-mail server. And the @ClintonFdn never housed a GSA-funded e-mail server, private or otherwise.
— Angel Urena (@angelurena) September 1, 2016
A Clinton spokesman also emphasized that no taxpayer money was used to purchase or maintain a private email server operated for the former president’s staff starting in 2007, which Hillary Clinton started using in 2009. Her use of the server to send emails as secretary of state has become the center of a swirling controversy about whether she skirted public records laws or State Department rules or compromised the security of top-secret national security information. The server was funded entirely out of Bill Clinton’s pocket, according to his office.
Brian Fallon: “Staffer wasn’t on GSA payroll until two years after he helped set up Clinton email acct.”
New headline is still false. Staffer wasn’t on GSA payroll until two years after he helped set up Clinton email accthttps://t.co/xuzo9mgtXT
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) September 1, 2016
Politico addressed the issue by adjusting the headline of Vogel’s article: ‘Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support.’ The change finds an explanation at the foot of the article: ‘Note: The headline on this story has been revised to reflect that GSA funds were used for IT support.’ As for the article itself, a Politico spokesman said it is ‘one hundred percent accurate and remains unchanged.’ The headline change doesn’t exactly have the Clinton folks celebrating: ‘That is a stretch, too, given Cooper was also paid out of personal funds, and it does not put the genie back in the bottle in terms of other outlets that are now citing Politico to say taxpayers footed the bill for the purchase of the personal email server,’ writes Fallon to the Erik Wemple Blog.
We have two employees that need the GSA packages. Can you send them to me ASAP. The names are Justin Cooper and Oscar Flores. Joe is aware of this change.”
In at least one instance, GSA paid to purchase and maintain a specialty Lockheed Martin database system called Intranet Quorom, the supporting systems for which were housed at one time at the Clinton Foundation’s offices, and used by both foundation staff and Bill Clinton’s personal office staff to store and process his correspondence.
The Clinton aide said servers supporting the Intranet Quorom system — which is used for data storage, not email — were the only pieces of equipment purchased by GSA that were housed at the Clinton Foundation at one point, but he said it was justified by the specific circumstances around it.
As staff needs to have the full picture of all correspondence sent by President Clinton, both staff from the Office of the Former President and the Foundation have access to, and can input into, the Intranet Quorum database,” the aide said.
The Clinton Foundation’s website suggests that there’s a strict wall between the foundation and the ex-president’s personal office. ‘All Foundation employees are paid for work through the Foundation payroll,’ the website says. ‘No Foundation staff are paid for Foundation work with taxpayer dollars.’ But the aide acknowledged ‘staff at the Foundation and staff at the Office of the Former President may have similar tasks, and need to coordinate this work — specifically staff that handles President Clinton’s correspondence.’ That shared work is facilitated by the Lockheed Martin IQ database system, the aide said.
To varying degrees, foundations associated with each former president are involved with the office operations. While the foundations themselves do not pay any portion of the office rental cost, they do assist office operations by supplying some furniture and equipment. At former President Carter’s office, which is leased from the Carter Presidential Center—a nonprofit foundation—two staff members of the Center use office space paid for by GSA. Simultaneously, however, GSA does not pay for other Center space that is used exclusively by former President Carter or his staff.
But the system’s dual purpose raised questions among GSA officials, who pressed Clinton’s representatives when they submitted an invoice in September 2011 to the GSA to purchase a $7,700 Dell server and other IT equipment to support the Lockheed Martin IQ database. Clinton Foundation officials explained to the GSA that they wanted the Dell server housed at foundation headquarters rather than at Clinton’s personal office. They explained in an email that the foundation office had better air conditioning, allowing it to support ‘about 10-15 more servers,’ and also it was where IT staff were based, so ‘trouble shooting with the servers can be done ASAP.’ The GSA staff asked Graham, then serving as the foundation’s COO, to demonstrate that ‘safeguards are in place to ensure that the servers are solely for use by’ Clinton’s personal office. A note affixed to the bottom of an email produced pursuant to POLITICO’s FOIA indicates that the GSA ultimately decided not to purchase the Dell server. Asked about the reasoning this week, a GSA spokesman suggested that Clinton’s representatives failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Dell server was not for use by the foundation.
But, perhaps highlighting the confusion caused by the overlapping spheres in the Clinton’s universe, the Clinton aide offered a different recollection. ‘We believe that the information GSA provided you with is incomplete. Our files show that GSA purchased the Dell server that operates the IQ database in 2010.’
All ex-presidents are allocated $96,000 per year for staffing.
A GSA spokesperson declined to comment on specific employees, but said ex-presidents have broad discretion over how they choose to divvy up the $96,600 they are provided each year for staffing. They can give the entire sum to a single employee or divide it among multiple employees.
A representative for Clinton in 2001 told the Government Accountability Office that, in addition to the GSA money, ‘some staff compensation will be paid by the former president and his presidential foundation,’ according to a 2001 GAO report. It made clear that most employees on the GSA payrolls of former presidents ‘also receive compensation from other sources.’
The office staffs of former presidents’ ranged from 6 to 19 persons and included full-time and part-time paid members along with volunteers and interns. In addition to receiving federal compensation, most paid staff members also receive compensation from other sources. These sources include the former presidents and his or his spouses’ foundations.
Generally, the aide explained that Clinton ‘wears several hats — among them being former President of the United States and the founder of the Clinton Foundation. His staffing reflects those roles.’ The aide added ‘there is no legal prohibition that would preclude the former president’s staff from receiving compensation from other sources or doing personal work for the former presidents. We are unaware of any legal prohibition that would preclude these activities.’
Aides to President Clinton assisted him “in a variety of settings” and were compensated according to the capacity in which they were assisting, be it his role as a former president, founder of the Clinton Foundation, or otherwise. According to several people familiar with the former president’s operation, the rationale behind the interwoven payrolls is that they allow for a small team to assist Clinton in a variety of settings without having to do logistically complicated hockey-like line changes. In a given day, Clinton might deliver a paid private speech (during which time his employees’ salaries could be paid by the executive services corporation) and a public speech in his capacity as a former president (during which his staff could be paid by the GSA funds). And he could attend events for the foundation (where staff time would be paid by the foundation) as well as his wife’s presidential campaign (staff time would be paid by the campaign).
I'd hate to call that piece tendentious verging on dishonest. But well, it's tendentious verging on dishonest.
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) September 1, 2016
Politico seems to be letting a bit of Clinton derangement syndrome show with this 'commingling' story today. Cheap.
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) September 1, 2016
I'm still trying to figure out what's shady/murky/troublesome about WJC aides being paid out of multiple pots for multiple functions.
— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) September 1, 2016
The only blurring of lines here is being done by Politico. pic.twitter.com/OOKXnQADLA
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) September 1, 2016
In general, this Politico story is the perfect example of deciding on a story & manipulating the evidence to make it fit
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) September 1, 2016
Same pattern as AP, Judicial Watch etc.–facts dug up by big investigation disprove thesis of big investigation https://t.co/ECIqVRL9bu
— Paul Glastris (@glastris) September 1, 2016
Politico tries to outdo the AP on most disingenuous Clinton Foundation reporting: https://t.co/558f9rdrre
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) September 1, 2016
Politico headline, 2008: “Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending.”
The 2008 version of @kenvogel’s story on Bill Clinton and the Former Presidents Act is a lot clearer https://t.co/pqpgGKlVHh
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 1, 2016
Politico headline, 2015: “Taxpayer tab for Clinton Inc.: $16 million.” “
]]>Donald Trump lied again about Hillary Clinton, claiming, “[Hillary Clinton and President Obama] support the release of dangerous, dangerous, dangerous criminals from detention..” This outrageous lie has already been debunked.
LIE:
Donald Trump: “[Hillary Clinton and President Obama] support the release of dangerous, dangerous, dangerous criminals from detention…” [Trump Immigration Speech in Phoenix, Arizona, 8/31/16]
THE TRUTH:
PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton wants to “release the violent criminals from jail” and that “she wants them all released” a rating of “Pants on Fire.” “Trump said it ‘is Hillary Clinton’s agenda’ to ‘release the violent criminals from jail. She wants them all released.’ It would be preposterous for any politician who wants to win an election to propose freeing every violent criminal from jail. Like many political figures today on the right, center and left, Clinton supports something much more modest — easing how the criminal justice system treats nonviolent offenders. That’s a far cry from saying Clinton is poised to set free everyone from Charles Manson to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire!” [PolitiFact, 5/26/16]
PolitiFact: “Clinton does support criminal justice reform, but we found no evidence that her plan includes the release of ‘violent criminals,’ much less ‘all’ of them.” “Clinton does support criminal justice reform, but we found no evidence that her plan includes the release of ‘violent criminals,’ much less ‘all’ of them. For starters, we should note that the Sentencing Commission’s action is now a done deal. Short of calling on the commission to reverse itself — which the panel, being independent, could simply ignore — or passing a law through Congress, there isn’t really anything Clinton (or Trump) could easily do to stop the forthcoming early releases. And of course, federal judges, not the president, are the ones who must sign off on applications for early release.” [PolitiFact, 5/26/16]
PolitiFact: “We looked at Clinton’s stated proposals for criminal justice policy and found that she focused her initiatives only on ‘nonviolent’ offenders.” “More broadly, we looked at Clinton’s stated proposals for criminal justice policy and found that she focused her initiatives only on ‘nonviolent’ offenders. The Clinton campaign said Trump’s comment is a misrepresentation of her views.” [PolitiFact, 5/26/16]
PolitiFact: The Clinton campaign’s “consistent focus on nonviolent offenders undermines the notion that Clinton wants to release violent offenders at all, much less to do so willy-nilly.” “If anything, Clinton’s policy page bends over backward to focus her attention on ‘nonviolent,’ rather than violent, offenders. Proposals specify ‘nonviolent’ offenders no fewer than seven times. This consistent focus on nonviolent offenders undermines the notion that Clinton wants to release violent offenders at all, much less to do so willy-nilly.” [PolitiFact, 5/26/16]
Donald Trump just lied (again) about Hillary Clinton’s refugee plan. Hillary has proposed accepting 65,000 refugees from Syria.
Trump claimed that Hillary supports accepting 620,000 refugees.
It’s just another egregious falsehood from Trump’s campaign of lies.
LIE:
Donald Trump: “This includes her plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees from Syria and that region over a short period of time even yesterday when you were watching the news, you saw thousands and thousands of people coming in from Syria.” [Trump Immigration Speech in Phoenix, Arizona, 8/31/16]
THE TRUTH:
FactCheck.org: “Clinton proposed that the U.S. accept 65,000 refugees from Syria… It’s not ‘Clinton’s plan’ to admit 620,000 refugees as president.” “Trump, citing a Senate subcommittee report, said that ‘Hillary Clinton’s plan’ would allow 620,000 refugees to resettle in the U.S. during her first term as president. But Clinton didn’t say that’s how many refugees she would allow into the country. The Republican-led subcommittee made assumptions about what Clinton would do as president. Last year, Clinton proposed that the U.S. accept 65,000 refugees from Syria. That was 55,000 more than the 10,000 President Obama authorized for admission from that country for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. In all, Obama authorized the admission of 85,000 refugees from all nations in fiscal 2016, and Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the administration would aim to admit at least 100,000 global refugees in fiscal 2017. To get to 620,000 refugees, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest assumed that Clinton would do something she has not explicitly said that she would — allow 155,000 refugees into the U.S. each year during her first term as president. So, it’s not ‘Clinton’s plan’ to admit 620,000 refugees as president. The subcommittee assumed she wanted to do that, even though Clinton has not specified a figure for all refugees over four years.” [FactCheck.org, 8/15/16]
Tonight, Donald Trump repeated his false claim that Hillary Clinton supports “open borders.” Unfortunately for Trump, his attempt to mislead voters has been debunked multiple times.
LIE:
Donald Trump: “President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders, and you know it better than anybody right here in Arizona.” [Trump Immigration Speech in Phoenix, Arizona, 8/31/16]
Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton “has pledged…create totally open borders in the United States.” “TRUMP: ‘She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States.’” [Associated Press, 6/22/16]
THE TRUTH:
PolitiFact rated the claim that “Hillary Clinton is for open borders” as “False.” ”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.” [PolitiFact, 7/18/16]
PolitiFact said Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton’s immigration plan would “create totally open borders” was “a huge distortion” and gave the claim a rating of “False.” “Trump said Clinton’s immigration platform would ‘create totally open borders.’ This is a huge distortion of Clinton’s proposals. Clinton has praised work already done to secure the border, and she said she supported a 2013 bill that would have invested billions more in border security while creating a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants. Her plan calls for protecting the border and targeting deportation to criminals and security threats. Her plan would make it easier for many undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation, but that’s not the same as ending all enforcement. We rate this claim False.” [PolitiFact, 6/23/16]
FactCheck.org called claims Hillary Clinton supports “open borders” wrong.” “Giuliani and Rep. Michael McCaul, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, both wrongly claimed that Hillary Clinton supports ‘open borders.’ As we wrote when Trump himself made a similar claim, Clinton supported a Senate immigration bill that would have created a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but it also would have included large investments in border security. […] On her campaign website, Clinton says she would ‘focus resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety.’ But the site also states that she will ‘uphold the rule of law’ and ‘protect our borders and national security.’ […] At a campaign stop in November, Clinton was even more explicit. ‘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,’ Clinton said in New Hampshire 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.’ That’s far short of advocating for open borders.” [FactCheck.org, 7/19/16]
CNN’s Reality Check called it false that Hillary Clinton advocated for open borders. “‘Hillary Clinton is promising more of the same. Open borders, executive amnesty and the surge of Syrian refugees,’ said Mike McCaul, R-Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Commission. Clinton’s platform on immigration incorporates a pathway to citizenship and enforcing immigration laws, including deporting people who ‘pose a violent threat to public safety.’ Clinton said in November that the US needs ‘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 also said in March that the US has ‘done a really good job securing the border.’ Clinton’s proposed policies and past rhetoric do not reflect open borders. That’s false.” [CNN, 7/18/16]
Hillary Clinton: “We need to secure our borders….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.” ”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.” [PolitiFact, 7/18/16]
Associated Press: “It’s not true that Clinton’s plan would create open borders.” “THE FACTS: It’s not true that Clinton’s plan would create open borders. Her plan does call for a pathway to citizenship that would allow people currently in the country illegally to stay, but only after going through a series of steps to become a citizen. On enforcement, Clinton has called for focusing on ‘detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety,’ but not ending enforcement outright.” [Associated Press, 6/22/16]
Here he goes again. Donald Trump just lied about Social Security benefits being given to undocumented immigrants under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Fact check: false.
LIE:
Donald Trump: “Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare, for illegal immigrants, breaking the federal budget.” [Trump Immigration Speech in Phoenix, Arizona, 8/31/16]
THE TRUTH:
Washington Post Fact Checker said Donald Trump’s claim that undocumented immigrants would collect Social Security under Hillary Clinton was “bizarre” and “just not supported by facts.” “The Republican presidential nominee makes a bizarre claim that undocumented immigrants will collect Social Security under a Clinton presidency. In general, people in the United States illegally are not eligible to collect Social Security benefits. They must be granted some type of lawful status — either by obtaining legal status or being granted deferred action. Even then, it’s not accurate to say they are ‘skipping the line.’ People who obtain lawful status under DACA need to work for at least 10 years, pay taxes and reach retirement age before they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Trump has already earned 41 Four-Pinocchio ratings. We would have liked to see the nominee finally stick closer to the facts in his first general-election ad. Unfortunately, this ad is — to borrow a line from its script — ‘more of the same.’ The broad assertion in this ad is just not supported by facts, and thus earns Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post, 8/20/16]
PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that undocumented immigrants would collect Social Security benefits under Hillary Clinton a rating of “Mostly False.” “Trump says in his television ad that, under a Clinton presidency, illegal immigrants would get to collect Social Security benefits. It is correct that Clinton has supported plans to give many undocumented immigrants the right to stay in the country through deferred action, which has already been done under the Obama administration’s DACA program. As a consequence of that, they are allowed to work and become part of the Social Security system under rules that have long been in place. But Trump’s ad gets at none of that nuance, instead insinuating that all illegal immigrants would be getting immediate handouts under Clinton’s presidency. Even if the broader DAPA program were to be adopted today, it would take a minimum of 10 years of working — and paying into the Social Security system — before these immigrants would be able to start getting their retirement money back. With few exceptions, the first payments wouldn’t be collected until after Clinton leaves office. Trump’s statement has an element of truth but gives a misleading impression that all illegal immigrants will be getting Social Security paychecks during a Clinton administration. We rate the statement Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 8/24/16]
Tonight, Donald Trump deployed one of his typical scare tactics, stating, “We have no idea who they are, where they come from, there’s no documentation, there’s no paperwork, it’s going to end badly, folks.” Trump’s claim about the efficacy of the U.S. immigration system has been debunked, yet Trump continues to peddle lies in an effort to deceive the American people.
Don’t believe a word he says, folks.
LIE:
Donald Trump: “We are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, there’s no documentation, there’s no paperwork, it’s going to end badly, folks, it’s going to end very, very badly.” [Trump Immigration Speech in Phoenix, Arizona, 8/31/16]
Donald Trump: “We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country.” “TRUMP: ‘We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.’” [Associated Press, 6/19/16]
THE TRUTH:
Associated Press: Donald Trump’s claim that “the U.S. doesn’t know who is being allowed into the country” is “demonstrably false.” “THE FACTS: Trump may be right on his overall description of the U.S. immigration system as ‘dysfunctional.’ It’s demonstrably false to say the U.S. doesn’t know who is being allowed into the country. Illegal immigration along the Mexican border remains a problem. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and people traveling as families, mostly from Central America, have arrived at the U.S. border this year. The U.S. still lacks a comprehensive exit system to determine more effectively who has stayed in the country after their visas have expired. But the U.S. government obviously knows who receives the government’s permission to legally immigrate into the country. Would-be immigrants, refugees and foreign tourists are all subjected to background checks and various forms of screening.” [Associated Press, 6/19/16]
]]>
While he used a teleprompter, that didn’t stop him from telling lies and saying misleading statements about our economy, Hillary Clinton, and his own plans. As The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler put it, “Just because you have footnotes doesn’t mean the facts are correct.”
]]>TRUMP’S CLAIM: “Hillary Clinton “plans another job killing $1.3 trillion tax increase.”
WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID ABOUT HILLARY’S PLAN:
Analyses by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the pro-business Tax Foundation both concluded that almost all of the tax increases proposed by Clinton would fall on the top 10 percent of taxpayers. Hardest hit would be the less than 0.1 percent of taxpayers who earn more than $5 million per year.
In his economic speech today, Donald Trump claimed that the majority of our black youth are “outside the labor force or not employed.” What about students?
TRUMP’S CLAIM: “58 percent of African-American youth are either outside the labor force or not employed.”
WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID:
Politifact: Donald Trump’s black youth unemployment number “comes from a computation of all 16- to 24-year-old blacks who aren’t working and may not even want a job, including high school and college students.”
Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent. The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim. Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to our question about where the candidate got his 59 percent figure. But it appears likely it comes from a computation of all 16- to 24-year-old blacks who aren’t working and may not even want a job, including high school and college students. Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics. We rate his statement Mostly False.
In Detroit this afternoon, Donald Trump repeated an already-debunked claim about Obamacare costing 2 million jobs. In fact, similar claims have been proven “mostly false” at least three times.
TRUMP’S LIE:
“In the coming days, we will be rolling out plans on all of these items. One of my first acts as President will be to repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare, saving another 2 million American jobs.”
THE TRUTH:
]]>
Today, Donald Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton “wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.” He’s just plain wrong.
TRUMP’S LIE: “Recently, at a campaign event, Hillary Clinton short-circuited again – to use a now famous term – when she accidentally told the truth and said she wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.”
THE TRUTH:
According to the transcript, numerous reporters, experts and a computer program, Clinton said the exact opposite.” “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!
During his economic speech today in Detroit, Donald Trump claimed that 94.3 million Americans are out of work. The real number is approximately 21 million Americans—less than a quarter of Trump’s figure.
TRUMP’S CLAIM: “There are now 94.3 million Americans outside of the labor force.”
THE TRUTH:
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S. had “93 million people out of work” as “False.”
Trump said, ‘We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they’re considered employed.’ That figure, boosted by Trump’s description, represents a basic misunderstanding of the labor market. Once you strip out full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen not to work to take care of their children, a more reasonable estimate of ‘out of work’ Americans is somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 million, or less than a quarter of Trump’s figure. Meanwhile, he is flat wrong that the government reclassifies discouraged workers as ‘employed.’ We rate his claim False.
TRUMP’S CLAIM: “The 5% figures is one of the biggest hoaxes in American modern politics.”
WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID ABOUT HIS CLAIM:
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!