Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Hilary’s Voter Suppression Claims Earn “Pants on Fire” Politifact Rating

    Hilary’s Voter Suppression Claims Earn “Pants on Fire” Politifact Rating

    What’s worse is that Hillary is still out repeating claims that have been thoroughly debunked by WaPo and Politifact fact checkers.

    You know it’s bad when even Politifact is giving you a “pants on fire” rating for your latest round of demagoguery.

    What’s worse is that Hillary is still out repeating claims that have been thoroughly debunked by WaPo and Politifact fact checkers.

    Alex Griswold from the Washington Free Beacon has the story:

    “I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act,” she said in a March speech, referring to the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act that subjected certain states to extra federal scrutiny. “It made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”

    PolitiFact gave Clinton a “Pants on Fire” for that claim and the Washington Post fact-checker gave her “Four Pinocchios,” both the worst possible rating. The fact-checks noted that Wisconsin wasn’t even covered by the portion of the Voting Rights Act the Court struck down, that the 40,000 figure was reached by misapplying data from only one county, and there was no basis for the 80,000 figure at all.

    Clinton combined the two false claims Tuesday. “Experts estimate that anywhere from 27,000 to 200,000 Wisconsin citizen voters, predominantly in Milwaukee, were turned away from the polls,” she said in a speech at George Washington University. “That’s a lot of potential voters.”

    “Hillary Clinton just can’t quit Wisconsin,” PolitiFact snarked in response. “Or, more specifically, can’t quit blaming its voting system for her 2016 electoral defeat.” The fact-checker rehashed all the reasons it had laid out before, saying “Clinton’s numbers still aren’t anywhere close to accurate.”

    Politifact’s official ruling:

    Clinton said between 27,000 and 200,000 Wisconsinites were “turned away” from the polls in 2016 due to lack of proper identification.

    But studies examining voter ID here say nothing of the sort.

    They looked broadly at how voter turnout changed — which includes the far larger number who simply stayed away. Experts say there is no reliable number for how many were physically turned away, but the existing work leaves no doubt it’s far short of the range cited by Clinton.

    This is the third time we have rated claims from Clinton on the Wisconsin turnout. She’s no closer on this one than the last one.

    We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

    Really, this:


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Petrushka | September 20, 2019 at 3:56 pm

    I’ve said this a bunch of times, but no one seems to pay attention. I followed the election all night on the New York Times tracking website. It was obvious by 9:00 o’clock that Trump would win.

    The website had the best tracking software I have ever seen. It made projections at the lowest possible level, based on historical data.

    The bottom line is, that any deviation from historical trends would have jumped out of the data. Any particular precinct participating in fraud or hankie-pankie would have stood out. It was all there in little red and blue markers.

    I think it was one of the reasons that certain Michigan precincts has so much trouble. They were motivated to pad the vote, but if they had, it would have been highly visible.

    When the recounts came along, those precincts had so many more votes than voters, they could not be recounted.

    “Voter Supression” for Hillary Clinton means voters who are aware of all her faults, alleged crimes, and corruption. As in: “Voter Supression” is why I did not vote for Hillary Clinton.

    In this case, shouldn’t it be “Pant-suit on Fire”???

    Bullet dodged. Thank you President Donald J. Trump.

    Whitewall | September 20, 2019 at 5:12 pm

    The current crop of Dems should step aside and let Hillary have one last shot.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend