Still think Priebus has any credibility?
We’ll pile on. In 2011, Priebus said the unemployment rate “rivals the Great Depression.” PolitiFact called that “herculean cherry picking.” A few weeks later, he tweeted that the average ER wait time in California is five hours due to Obamacare. The actual number was 31 minutes. Priebus even claimed that Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI—a charge FBI Director James Comey entirely dismisses.
It’s no wonder that pathological liar Donald Trump consistently praises the GOP chair.
In 2011, Reince Priebus claimed the U.S. had lost 26 million jobs under President Obama.
Asked by host Meredith Vieira whether the recent run of job growth and falling unemployment numbers ‘throw a real monkey wrench’ into his party’s argument, Priebus said, ‘No, not at all. Under this president, he’s promised millions and millions of jobs. We’ve lost 26 million jobs, Meredith, since he’s been president. He promised under an $850 billion stimulus program that we’d be on a path to recovery. We’ll none of that has come true. … I think that pointing out a snail’s pace in the job (growth) numbers is not going to be enough to undo 26 million jobs that are lost, Meredith.’
The 26 million figure he cited on the Today show was ridiculously wrong. We rate it Pants on Fire.” “Perhaps Priebus simply misspoke, or perhaps he misplaced a decimal point and ended up wrong by a factor of 10. Whatever the reason, the 26 million figure he cited on the Today show was ridiculously wrong. We rate it Pants on Fire.
Priebus: “We have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression.”
Priebus said, in part, ‘Look, I’m not defending these guys, but the fact of the matter is, we have big issues here to tackle in this country. We have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression.
PolitiFact: There is “little statistical support that it [unemployment] ‘rivals’” the Great Depression, any comparison “requires herculean cherry picking.”
First, is it fair to say that ‘we have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression’? As bad as the unemployment situation is currently — and it’s unquestionably bad — there’s little statistical support that it ‘rivals’ the situation that existed during the Great Depression…Any way you cut it, peak unemployment since the start of the most recent recession, as bad as it has been, remains well under half of the peak it reached during the Great Depression. For more than a decade, annual unemployment never fell below 14.3 percent, or a level about 40 percent higher than the worst of what we’ve seen recently. Any suggestion that the two situations are equivalent requires herculean cherry picking. So Priebus is wrong on the first claim.
So where does this leave us? Today’s jobs picture is the worst it has been in decades, not just measured by unemployment rates but also by duration of unemployment. However, all of the available statistics — imperfect though they may be — suggest that today’s numbers aren’t anywhere near high enough to ‘rival’ those that prevailed for more than a decade during the Great Depression. We rate Priebus’ statement False.
Preibus: “Thanks to #ObamaCare, average E.R. wait in California is 5 hours.”
On July 7, 2014, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus sent the following tweet: ‘Thanks to #ObamaCare, average E.R. wait in California is 5 hours: http://gop.cm/6015YqKd And ‘it’s only going to get worse.’
PolitiFact ruled the claim in Priebus’ tweet “False.”
In a tweet, Priebus said, ‘Thanks to #ObamaCare, average E.R. wait in California is 5 hours.’ The statistic was based on data from 2012 — two years before the provisions of the ACA could have had any impact. Meanwhile, the five-hour figure is just one of three measurements of E.R. wait times — and not even necessarily the best one. If you count from the time of a patient’s arrival to being seen by a health care professional, the wait time was 31 minutes in California. Even the strongest support for the claim is far from solid: A survey of emergency physicians found signs that E.R. traffic had increased since the ACA took effect in January, but the results were mixed, and this documents patient volume, not wait times. We rate the claim False.
Priebus claimed Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI.
I think she should worry about telling the truth to federal investigators and quit lying to the American people. And she should look in the mirror and ask herself what character is and what integrity is, and she’s not going to see it if she’s looking at herself. I think anyone that lies to the FBI and having an FBI Director tell the whole world that she is a bonafide liar in regard to national secrets, the most precious secrets that our country has, and she lied about them, I think that, I think someone like that isn’t even qualified to be president.
FBI Director James Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie to the FBI.
FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers on Thursday that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did not lie to the FBI about her handling of emails as secretary of state and did not break the law. Comey told a Republican-led oversight panel in the U.S. House of Representatives that no reasonable prosecutor would charge Clinton with a crime over her use of private email servers while she was secretary of state, some of which were used to transmit classified information.
THE LIE: Reince Priebus said, “You can kiss your gun rights goodbye if she ever finds her way into the White House.”
THE TRUTH:
FactCheck.org said that Donald Trump “distorts the facts” with the claim that “Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away” and “abolish the Second Amendment.”
Donald Trump distorts the facts when he says ‘Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away’ and ‘abolish the Second Amendment.’ Clinton’s gun violence prevention proposal would impose restrictions, including a ban on semi-automatic ‘assault weapons,’ but it does not call for banning all guns. Trump made his remarks at a rally in Lynden, Washington, eliciting boos from his audience. As we have written before, Trump made a similar remark in a TV interview on Jan. 6, when he claimed Clinton ‘wants to take everyone’s gun away.’
CNN: “Clinton has never argued for abolishing the Second Amendment.”
Trump’s wild claim comes on the heels of an unrelenting barrage of attacks the newly minted presumptive Republican nominee has fired off against Clinton in recent days. Clinton has never argued for abolishing the Second Amendment but has called for universal background checks and stricter controls on firearms.
LIE: Priebus: “It was on her watch ISIS began to spread its wings of evil over the Middle East.”
THE TRUTH: PolitiFact rated the claim that “Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS” as “False.”
Trump said ‘Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS.’ There were several factors that contributed to the growing power of ISIS, but it’s misleading to pin the responsibility solely on Clinton. For starters, the roots of ISIS trace back to 2004, when Bush was president and before Clinton was Obama’s secretary of state. She did vote to authorize force in Iraq in 2002 while a senator, but that was advocated by the Bush administration and the vast majority of senators. The intervention in Libya, which she supported, did give ISIS an opening, but Trump is overstating her role by saying she is responsible for ISIS. This claim is inaccurate. We rate it False.
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.’
Senator Ted Cruz only acknowledged Donald Trump to recognize his nomination and ended his remarks by telling a chorus of boo-ers to “vote your conscience,” demonstrating no confidence in the party’s nominee.
The Trump family was stone faced, The Donald was irritated and Heidi Cruz was escorted out for her own safety as the storyline was defined for Night Three.
]]>Trey Gowdy admitted this week that the military couldn’t have gotten to Benghazi in enough time to save American lives, confirming that the Benghazi Committee — the eighth congressional investigation into this tragedy — is based on nothing but politics. Now, House Republicans are using procedural maneuvers to try to keep secret the amount of wasted taxpayer dollars spent on duplicative ‘investigations.’ But this isn’t surprising. Gowdy and Benghazi Republicans have repeatedly gone out of their way to withhold documents, hold secret meetings, refuse to make transcripts public and limit document access to Democrats and to the American public. This latest stunt just proves that they are trying to hide something. The American people deserve to see the full cost of the eight Benghazi investigations to the Department of Defense, which should be spending our taxpayer dollars on more important things like protecting our country.
House Republican Leadership Withheld Full Cost of Benghazi Investigations from the Public
House Republican leaders ruled an amendment that would have exposed the full cost burden of Benghazi investigations on DoD, “out of order.”
Trey Gowdy Limited Democrats’ Access to Transcripts
GOP members of the Benghazi Committee issued new rules prohibiting Democratic members and staff from receiving their own physical and digital copies of witness interview transcripts.
Trey Gowdy’s new rules may violate House procedures requiring “equitable treatment” for both sides regarding “the accessibility of committee records.”
Trey Gowdy Began Withholding Documents Even Before Questionable New Rule
Rep. Cummings: “Republicans are so desperate to keep us from sharing these facts with the public, they denied Democrats any access to some of these witness transcripts for weeks.”
Trey Gowdy Refused to Publicly Release Documents
Trey Gowdy refused to release emails handed over to the Select Committee.
Trey Gowdy Fought to Keep Testimony Behind Closed Doors
Trey Gowdy initially argued there was no alternative to a private interview with Hillary Clinton to discuss her emails.
Benghazi Committee Republicans rejected Cheryl Mills’ request for public testimony.
Trey Gowdy Rejected Every Request to Make Transcripts Public
Rep. Cummings called on Trey Gowdy to release full transcripts of all witness interviews and depositions conducted by the Benghazi Committee.
Trey Gowdy refused to release the Sidney Blumenthal deposition transcript despite calls from committee members.
Trey Gowdy reneged on plans to hold a vote on releasing the Blumenthal transcript despite prior assertions that a public business meeting would be held for the vote.
Benghazi Committee Republicans voted together to keep Blumenthal’s deposition transcript secret after Rep. Cummings forced a vote on the issue during Hillary Clinton’s public hearing.
Trey Gowdy refused to release the transcript of the Cheryl Mills interview despite calls from committee members.
Trey Gowdy Held Secret Witness Meetings, Excluding Democrats
As of January 2015, Benghazi Committee Republicans had held at least 5 secret witness interviews without a Democrat in attendance.
]]>Paul Ryan on supporting Trump: ‘Yes, I will support – of course I will.’ DICKERSON: ‘Will you support Donald Trump if he is the nominee?’ RYAN: ‘Yes, I will support — of course I will.’ DICKERSON: ‘And will you support Ted Cruz if he’s the nominee?’ RYAN: ‘Yes.’
Paul Ryan when asked if he could still support Trump: ‘I stand by all my comments … but do I believe that Hillary Clinton would make a better president? No way, I certainly do not believe that.’ RADDATZ: ‘You have said that Trump does not speak for the Republican Party when it comes to immigration, and you thought his comments were extremely disrespectful. So that’s a guy you could still support?’ RYAN: ‘Yes, I’d — my — I stand by all my comments, my previous comments. But do I believe that Hillary Clinton would make a better president? No way, I certainly don’t believe that. Look, I think we’re having a good primary process. It’s cathartic. It’s helpful. We have excellent people running for president. And so I think what really matters is not the personality, but the policy.
Paul Ryan on whether Trump has to change his policies: “No, no I’m not saying that at all… who am I?” JAKE TAPPER: But doesn’t he have to completely revoke, in order to become the man that can unite behind the principles and the policies that you support – doesn’t he completely have to say that he doesn’t support the deportation of 12 million undocumented immigrants, because you disagree with that? That he doesn’t support – PAUL RYAN: No, no I’m not saying that at all. JAKE TAPPER: He doesn’t support – PAUL RYAN: I’m not saying that. JAKE TAPPER: – banning all Muslims from entering the United States? Because you don’t support that. PAUL RYAN: Well, obviously – look, who am I? Look, I’m not saying he’s got to support my policies. JAKE TAPPER: You’re the Speaker of the House. PAUL RYAN: He won fair and square – he won fair and square on the policies. And yes, he comes from a different wing than the one I do. But I’ve got to tell you one thing, Jake, if we don’t unify all wings of the party, we’re not going win the election.
Ryan on Trump’s Muslim ban: “This is not conservatism. what was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.” RYAN: I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today. This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for. Not only are there many Muslims serving in our armed forces, dying for this country, there are Muslims serving right here in the House, working every day to uphold and to defend the constitution. Some of best and biggest allies in this struggle and fight against radical Islamic terror, are Muslims. The vast, vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful – who believe in pluralism and freedom, democracy, individual rights.
Ryan on Trump’s flirtations with white supremacists: “If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry.” RYAN: This is the kind of moment when we should be having a serious debate about the policies needed to restore the American idea. And instead the conversation over the last few days has been about white supremacist groups. As you know, I try to stay out of the day-to-day, ups and downs of the primary. But I’ve also said when I see something that runs counter to we are as a party and as a country, I will speak up. So today I want to be very clear about something. If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not pray on peoples’ prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals. This is the party of Lincoln. We believe all people are created equal in the eyes of god and our government. This is fundamental. And if someone wants to be our nominee, they must understand this. I hope this is the last time I need to speak out on this race.
Ryan on Trump’s immigration comments: “He doesn’t speak for the Republican party and I think his comments were extremely disrespectful…” QUESTION: Question is, is he damaging with his comments on immigration and should he be in the Republican debates? RYAN: He doesn’t speak for the Republican Party and I think his comments were extremely disrespectful and I don’t think that’s the way to have an immigration conversation. QUESTION: Should he be in the debates? RYAN: I’ll leave that to Reince to decide.
Paul Ryan on whether deportation could happen: “I can’t imagine how it could happen.” PELLEY: I take it you don’t advocate rounding up 11 million illegal immigrants and deporting them. RYAN: I do not. PELLEY: That’s not going to happen while you’re speaker of the House. RYAN: I can’t imagine how it could happen. So no.
Ryan: “It’s time to set aside the bullying, to set aside belittlement and appeal to higher aspirations – appeal to what is good in us.”JAKE TAPPER: Do you share Governor Romney’s views? Trump’s a phony, a bully, and a fraud? PAUL RYAN: Look, here is what I think Jake. And I think you’re going to see the tapes like that running all fall. The question is, can our presumptive nominee turn things around, unify and have a different kind of cadence going forward. The way I look at this, Jake, is it’s time to go from tapping into anger to channeling that anger into solutions. It’s time to set aside the bullying, to set aside belittlement and appeal to higher aspirations – appeal to what is good in us.
Ryan: “I don’t want to go back and roll the tape – look, I was pretty clear and I was outspoken on a number of occasions where I think that he did the wrong thing or said the wrong thing. and I’ll do that in the future if need be.” TAPPER: But what you’re saying is a fairly dramatic announcement, that the Speaker of the House cannot as of now support his nominee for president. Is there something specific that he has done that has brought you to this moment? RYAN: Well, like I said, I hope to support our nominee. I hope to support his candidacy fully and I want to do that. But right now, just, I’ve got to tell you, Jake, just being candid with you, at this point, I’m just not there right now. And it’s because I think, of part – I don’t want to go back and roll the tape – look, I was pretty clear and I was outspoken on a number of occasions where I think that he did the wrong thing or said the wrong thing. And I’ll do that in the future if need be. I hope it’s not necessary. But I think what a lot of Republicans want to see is that we have a standard bearer that bears our standards.
FACTS: Despite the RNC’s misleading claims, new records-retention regulations “weren’t fully implemented by [the State Department] until a year and a half after Clinton left State.” Clinton is the first Secretary in history to ask for her work emails to be released publicly. [Daily Beast, 3/3/15]
RNC CLAIM #2: “Highlighting the fact that Clinton’s team can’t discern the difference between work emails and personal emails 1,500 times is not doing Clinton any favors. Especially since it has been revealed Clinton failed to turn over at least 15 work emails that she was required to.”
FACTS: Is the RNC seriously trying to attack Hillary for sharing TOO MANY emails? The fact is that Clinton shared 55,000 pages of emails. [Hillary Clinton, 3/10/15]
RNC CLAIM #3: “Unfortunately for Clinton, saying the same false claim two times does not make it true. As two independent inspectors general have confirmed, there was information contained in Clinton’s emails that was classified then and remains classified.”
FACTS: The RNC is just embarrassing itself now. According to the State Department spokesperson, none of the emails were “marked as classified at the time they were sent” and that Clinton received them. [State Department Press Briefing, 8/12/15] The debate over classification is nothing more than a “bureaucratic turf war.” [Jonathan Allen, Vox, 7/28/15]
RNC CLAIM #4: “Even the State Department has acknowledged it asked for Clinton’s emails as a result of the Benghazi committee. If Hillary had turned over her records immediately as she was supposed to, the committee would not have to be fighting for all of Clinton’s emails about Benghazi.”
FACTS: RNC, WRONG AGAIN. The State Department has made clear on several occasions that the State Department’s process requesting email records from former Secretaries of State for archiving purposes, “predated the request from the Select Committee.” [State Department Daily Press Briefing, 3/6/15]
RNC CLAIM #5: “Jeopardizing national security is not “nonsense” and only a Clinton would think being involved in an FBI investigation “comes with the territory” of running for office.”
FACTS: The RNC lies again. The real question is, will the New York Times repeat its past missteps and publish this GOP spin as fact? “The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary […] Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.” [Washington Post, 8/12/15]
]]>
Perhaps the RNC is unaware of Jeb’s shady business dealings in Nigeria, but we’re glad to help inform them. In the future, they should make sure their own house is in order before launching such patently false attacks.