Latest

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and partisan agenda and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.

Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and partisan agenda and it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.

Earlier this year Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton Super PAC, admitted they are spending millions of dollars to employ an army of trolls to “correct” and “push back” against internet users who criticize Clinton.

Correct The Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project admitted in a press release that it pays people to pretend to be Clinton supporters, and claims that thousands of unsuspecting social media users have already been “addressed” by the PAC’s mercenary social media warriors – with the promise that many more will be “corrected” in the near future.

Given that Snopes entered the political fact checking game around the same time, and began publishing more political articles than ever before – most of which display a clear Clinton bias – it is legitimate to ask if Snopes is also on the Correct The Record payroll.

Ethics Alarms reports:

Ethics Alarms has been tracking the increasing political bias exhibited by Snopes, once the definitive “Urban Legends” web source to identify false stories on the internet, e-mail hoaxes and other pollution of public information.

The website has made the disastrous decision to wade into political topics and to hire some new social justice warriors and wanna-be Democratic Party operatives to cover them, resulting in the site becoming a bad imitation of PolitiFact.

The disturbing trend really established itself this month, but it was in evidence earlier. For example, Snopes rushed to defend Hillary Clinton when the story of her defense of a child rapist was used to smear her. (Ethics Alarms explained, correctly, unlike Snopes, what was unethical about the attacks on Clinton—all defendants deserve a zealous defense, no matter what the charge, and a lawyer isn’t endorsing or supporting a client’s crimes by doing her professional duty.)

The Snopes defense, in contrast, was dishonest and misleading. Quoth Snopes, via its primary left-biased reporter, Kim LaCapria:

Snopes lies

Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections don’t match the claim. That’s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy game of moving the goalposts and using straw men. The claim, as stated by Snopes, is 100% true.

Clinton did successfully defend her client; very successfully, in fact. Getting a beneficial plea bargain that is the best outcome a client can hope for is a successful defense. LaCapria is displaying her ignorance. Acquittal isn’t the only successful defense outcome.

Clinton also laughed about the case. What would you call this? (from FactCheck.org)

In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon published the audio of an interview that Arkansas reporter Roy Reed conducted with Clinton in the 1980s. In the interview, Clinton recalls some unusual details of the rape case, and she can be heard laughing in three instances, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs.

Clinton: Of course he claimed he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.  [laughs]

At another point, Clinton said the prosecutor balked at turning over evidence, forcing her to go to the judge to obtain it.

Clinton: So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence [laughs] before it was presented.

Clinton then said that the evidence she obtained was a pair of the accused’s underwear with a hole in it. Clinton told Reed that investigators had cut out a piece of the underwear and sent the sample to a crime lab to be tested, and the only evidence that remained was the underwear with a hole in it.

Clinton took the remaining evidence to a forensic expert in Brooklyn, New York, and the expert told her that the material on the underwear wasn’t enough to test. “He said, you know, ‘You can’t prove anything,’” Clinton recalled the expert telling her.

Clinton:I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, “Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” [laughs]

That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.

Ridiculous.

Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary “did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.’” She pleaded that her client was not guilty, meaning that she argued in court that he didn’t rape the victim. Hillary claimed that her client was not guilty of rape while the victim was saying he raped her. Again from FactCheck.org:

Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.

Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.

If Snopes is arguing that Hillary didn’t use the precise words ‘made up the rape story,’ that’s deceit. Obviously her defense was that the child said there was rape when there wasn’t one. In the meme Snopes was using in its post, “made up” is reasonable short hand for “falsely claimed that she was raped.”

Contrary to Scopes’ denials, Hillary also made it clear, in her quotes in the interview, that she thought her client was guilty. What else could “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs” mean?

No, she didn’t volunteer for the case, and saying that she “freed” him is self-evidently sloppy in describing any criminal defense representation. Judges, juries and prosecutors free defendants; no defense lawyer has that power. Did Clinton’s efforts on behalf of the rapist make him a free man long, long before he would have been without Clinton’s efforts? Unquestionably. He was sentenced to just one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to the final judgment signed by the judge.

Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable.

As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopes’ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin.

In June, Snopes decided that the outrageous news story about a school calling the police to grill a fourth grader about something he said at a class party warranted undermining. After all, we can’t have people thinking that our schools abuse students based on hysterical political correctness and race-baiting. Snopes then titled its post, dishonestly: “Police Called Over ‘Racist’ Brownies?

No news reports claimed that the police were called because of the brownies. None. Police were called because a student made some statement about brownies that another student deemed racist, and the school staff called the police. It’s really easy to debunk a claim that was never made. Does the Snopes story prove that the story is false in any way? No. Why was it written then?

In July, we learned that the trend was no aberration. Snopes apparently felt that the inspiring Facebook post by officer Jay Stalien needed to be discredited, so it had LaCapria write this, which suggested by the inherent innuendo of presenting such a post on a hoax-exposure site that readers should be skeptical. The Stalien post expressed anti-Black Lives Matter sentiments. And Kim couldn’t prove that Stalien exists.

Come to think of it, I can’t prove that Kim exists.

When did Snopes start fact-checking Facebook opinion posts? It started when the site decided to choose sides, that’s when.

Last week, several sources, all so-called “conservative” news media, noted that the American flag was conspicuous by its absence on the set of the Democratic National Convention on its first day. Liberal media went into full-spin mode, scoffing at the criticism. Ethics Alarms concluded that the omission was intentional, at least to some extent.

Then Snopes, in full spin mode, issued a rebuttal of the no-flag observation, complete with a couple of photographs showing when the flag appeared in digital form, a bunch of flags stuffed away somewhere, and a few individual Democrats in flag-themed garb. I expressed my skepticism about Snopes’ “proof.” It turned out that the rebuttal was worse than I suspected. The site was just busted by The Daily Caller, which checked the photos.

The DC’s findings: the photos offered by Snopes consisted of a screenshot from PBS’ coverage of day one, taken during the pledge of allegiance at the very beginning of the convention, before the physical flags were removed, and a screenshot of C-SPAN’s day two coverage. Snopes falsely claimed that photo was from day one of the convention. Mallory Weggemann, the paralympic swimmer who gave Tuesday’s pledge of allegiance, is seen to the left of the C-Span logo, sitting in her wheelchair as the flag-bearers walk past her…

Snopes lies

The verdict: Snopes lied. It deliberately presented a Day 2 photo as being taken on Day 1, because it was desperate to disprove the claims by “right wing sites” that the Democrats were minimizing the presence of the American flag.

That’s the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it.

Can it recover? Maybe, but not without…

…Getting out of the political fact-checking business.

…Firing Dan Evon, who used the misleading flag photos, as well as Kim LaCapria.

…Confessing its betrayal of trust and capitulation to partisan bias, apologizing, and taking remedial measures.

With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.

I’ll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the site’s days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I won’t be using it again.

Baxter Dmitry
Follow me

Baxter Dmitry

Writer at Your News Wire
Passionate about motor sports, military history and the truth, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one.
Baxter Dmitry
Follow me
Baxter Dmitry
About Baxter Dmitry (462 Articles)
Passionate about motor sports, military history and the truth, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one.
  • Asura

    What if you are spinning facts to support your agenda as you claim Snopes to be doing.

    • Ron

      Facts out of context is “spinning the facts” which is exactly what he is doing.

      • Cordovan Splotch

        Feel free to supply the context any time you feel like it.

        • Ron

          Two out of many examples:
          1.
          “Clinton: So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence [laughs] before it was presented.”

          She is not “laughing about the case”. She is laughing at the absurdity of having to go to a standing judge and convince him that she had “a right to see the evidence.” It’s called “Discovery” and apparently Judge Maupin either did not believe in discovery, did not believe the prosecutor had to turn over the evidence (as he needed to be “convinced”) or possibly a combination of both. She was not laughing at the case, she was laughing at the circumstances with the judge.

          2.
          “Clinton:I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, “Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” [laughs]”

          “That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.”

          Snopes is 100% correct. She was not laughing about either the case ITSELF, or the FACTS related to the case. Instead, she was referring to evidence she had gathered that she took to a forensic expert, who in turn was willing to testify about that evidence.
          “Clinton took the remaining evidence to a forensic expert in Brooklyn, New York, and the expert told her that the material on the underwear wasn’t enough to test. “He said, you know, ‘You can’t prove anything,’” Clinton recalled the expert telling her.”

          So yes this article is not posting the ENTIRE context of why she was caught “laughing three times”. In every instance, she was laughing at absurd legal maneuverings within the case, not about the actual case itself. Meaning the horrific rape of a 12 year old girl. Note the bias the author of this article shows “Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling.” Really, unsettling to who?

          • Snopes Ran By Idiots

            Oh, so you ARE an idiot.

            Or you’re paid to be an idiot.
            Laughing while talking about a case is laughing about the case. Every event she laughed about was directly tied to the case, therefore, ding ding ding! You guessed it! She laughed about the case.

          • Ron

            Okay try to follow along here, which I realize from your comment is highly unlikely. There is a MAJOR difference between “laughing while talking about a case” and “laughing ABOUT the case”. The “case” in this article was the raping of a 12 year old girl. THAT is the case. And nobody, including Mrs. Clinton were laughing about it.

            As I stated previously “In every instance, she was laughing at absurd legal maneuverings within the case, not about the actual case itself.” If you have any lawyers who are friends of yours, or for that matter doctors, maybe with pictures and very small words, they can explain the difference to you.

          • Marie Noybn

            you conveniently left out episode number one, which cannot be spun. She laughed about the guy passing a lie detector while admitting she knew he was lying about the rape (saying she lost her faith in lie detectors because of it is clearly stating she believed him to be a rapist)

          • Ron

            Didn’t think it was relevant if you look at the OVERALL context of my comment. But fine, let’s address that as well if it will make you feel better. As I stated previously, and which you obviously have a hard time comprehending.
            There is a MAJOR difference between “laughing while talking about a case” and “laughing ABOUT the case”. The “case” in this article was the raping of a 12 year old girl. THAT is the case. And nobody, including Mrs. Clinton were laughing about it. The fact that she was joking about the lie detector tests does not mean she was condoning the actions of the client she was paid to defend. She was laughing at the results, NOT the case circumstances. Context is everything. I have worked with several lawyers and doctors in previous jobs and they would tell you the exact same thing I just did.

          • Ronni Taylor

            You are twisted and everything you say is non-sequitur. You rant on but it’s just illogical and arbitrary with no facts or even logical thinking. Go back to middle school.

          • Cordovan Splotch

            Alright, time to put that “context” (that you copy pasted from something akin to a Buzzfeed article) of yours into context.

            First: I noticed that you left out her little laugh about the outcome of the polygraph test that the rapist took.

            Second: “Clinton:I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, “Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” [laughs]”
            What miscarriage of justice? Obviously one she’s trying to prevent. A rapist being punished for his crimes? That’s awfully funny indeed, I can see why she would laugh at that though.

            Third: “In every instance, she was laughing at absurd legal maneuverings within the case, not about the actual case itself.”
            And now you’re just straight up lying, and if that line was copy pasted from Snopes, then so is Snopes.
            What is conveniently not pointed out here is that she was just as likely to laugh at her own absurd legal maneuverings and the fact that they worked to get a rapist off easy, as those of the prosecution.

          • Ron

            First off, I sited my source, which was related to previous replies. “Snopes is 100% correct.”

            Secondly in this comment string, I also addressed the polygraph BS. But for your reading enjoyment, I have re-posted it below.

            “Didn’t think it was relevant if you look at the OVERALL context of my comment. But fine, let’s address that as well if it will make you feel better. As I stated previously, and which you obviously have a hard time comprehending.
            There is a MAJOR difference between “laughing while talking about a case” and “laughing ABOUT the case”. The “case” in this article was the raping of a 12 year old girl. THAT is the case. And nobody, including Mrs. Clinton were laughing about it. The fact that she was joking about the lie detector tests does not mean she was condoning the actions of the client she was paid to defend. She was laughing at the results, NOT the case circumstances. Context is everything. I have worked with several lawyers and doctors in previous jobs and they would tell you the exact same thing I just did.”

            Third, that “line” was my own and was not copied from any source. Which is why it is NOT in quotes. And there is no “lie” involved here. The reality is that there is no laughing about the actual CASE, (i.e. the horrific rape of the little girl). Hang out with doctors and lawyers for a while and you will see that context is everything.

  • Tom Megginson

    You don’t seem to understand how the justice system works. A defence lawyer has to do their best to defend their client. Otherwise, they have no business in law.

    • rbgoi

      Yea the writer said as much. What’s wrong is Snopes attempting to hide something that doesn’t need to be hidden.

      • Tom Megginson

        The headline is not exactly honest.

      • Ronni Taylor

        You are the one spinning facts. Neo-Nazi brain huh?

        • rbgoi

          Do you even know what a Nazi was? Way to show your ignorance hun.

          • Ronni Taylor

            A Nazi was a fake Christian Capitalist like you. Deplorable, lowly educated and known to be cruel and numb. Seig Heil!

          • Marie Noybn

            LOL. National SOCIALISM is hardly Christian capitalism.. but you got the fake part right on hitlers part, he used the name Christian to twist the ideals and corrupt his people into following him, he didnt truly believe in God himself, as you will come to understand if you read his book. Just anothe liberal that believes….. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a312215de7b9f067fe68c71419881fa1687d4bcc78a076f6cb6d1421ce58217.jpg

      • PianoMan

        It’s the context of the accusation. People were painting a picture that Hillary was laughing about the actual rape. Snopes could have worded their finding better, but they were clearly showing that Hillary was not laughing about the rape or the victim. Her “laughter” was over some procedural issues during the case and things she learned during the proceedings. It is the context that matters and the characterization of the “laughing” as somehow mocking a rape victim that was the problem with the memes and email chains that went around. And before I get bashed, I’ve already voted and it wasn’t for Hillary… I’m just a guy who believes in honesty and doesn’t get his information from conspiracy blogs and click-bait sites like this.

    • http://www.ahbutidigress.blogspot.com/ realBKW

      The explanations by the author in response to “questionable” Snopes answers are specifically worded to support his claims only by that choice of words, exactly what he accuses Snopes of doing. He isn’t challenging their FACTS, he’s challenging the WORDING, which, like statistics, any clever writer can choose to support or challenge any statement without addressing or including facts.

    • Janice Burgess Bailey

      Did you miss the part of the article that said that very thing?
      “As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopes’ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin.”

      I guess you are one of those people who are ready to jump in and defend Shillary no matter what. Why bother reading the whole article when you can jump right to the comment section and spew your opinion after reading just the first paragraph!

      • Dawn

        The part that i find disturbing is how brutal she was to the little girl suggesting she wanted to have sex with older men. Sick!

        • Manny Borges

          …. exactly where did you get that from?

  • Chris Sky

    SNOPES is ALWAYS full of sh*t…

  • rbgoi

    Does anybody ever read the full article? It’s seriously annoying to see comments by people who clearly skipped over the majority. Snopes has been biased for a VERY long time so I’m glad people are seeing it and not trusting the supposed “fact checking” site.

    • http://www.salescopywriter.net/ Alan

      They have certainly displayed a left-wing bias for a long timr

    • Robert Kriegar

      BS. Just because the right wing is wrong, it does not equal that there is bias.

      • ArumBouyed

        What is the “right wing” wrong about?

    • Manny Borges

      I read every word. I especially like how this article tried to use factcheck.org to refute snopes and they pretty much say the exact same thing in regards to the rape case. She did represent him. A PD really doesn’t get to choose cases. And she did laugh about not trusting lie detectors.
      Then the Brownie thing… which makes no sense whatsoever. This article says 4th grader, it was a third grader, and the snopes article makes no determination other than there are not enough facts to come to a conclusion and that the story was being told by the kid who was in troubles mother and that is generally not a reliable source as far as unbiased opinions go.
      I could keep going, but I am not going to change your mind am I?

  • Ronni Taylor

    This article is “spinning the facts” badly. Your attempt to smear Snopes won’t work because we’ve seen Snopes is unbiased and this website is just Neo-Nazi shills. Shill on.

    • TinaDexler

      What an idiot.

      • Ronni Taylor

        You have no proff that Snopes is biased and it’s widely rated to be unbiased. So that makes your statements false, illogical, twisted and downright immature. Snopes gets a good rating in being unbiased:from factcheck.org & many others – http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

        • Janice Burgess Bailey

          Yeah, in your opinion they are unbiased, but that is just YOUR opinion, that does not make it FACT. They check the facts until they get the answer they want and then build a “case” for that point. Look up their answer about Military Stress Cards. They were dead wrong. My husband has held one in in hands and there was an official document number on it, which means it was not just something some random drill sergeant picked up and handed out
          I’ve come to believe that there is no way to be sure of anything you read on the internet (or in the newspaper). Check as many sources as you can before you believe anything or any single site.

          • Manny Borges

            You do realize he (maybe she) just gave sources. That doesn’t qualify as an opinion.

      • TinaDexler

        Please, snopes is a biased liberal sensationalist website. They are NOT objective and neutral. They will “fact check” everything bad about liberals and whatever they can’t find how to prove otherwise, they claim it’s a “conspiracy theory”. PATHETIC! THEY SUCK!

    • Marie Noybn
  • melizer

    How is it “honorable” to introduce an affidavit of victim-blaming lies, exactly?

  • dodger4754

    An unbiased alternative to Snopes is: truthorfiction.com

  • Darren Patterson

    Check out what they say on Oct 2 . About jason spiels, the Democrat that signed up 19 dead people in Virginia. They say as of October 2 , Noone had been charged , so it’s fake. But on Sept 29 . The guy admitted to doing it . Snopes is nothing but hillary pawns

  • Jaycephus

    But the Dems push these get out the vote drives to register low-information voters who’ll vote on very superficial understanding, or just the fact that the Dems gave them something for free at one point.

  • Shelly Kay

    She didn’t technically “volunteer” for the case but in that audio recorded interview she clearly says she accepted the case as a “favor” to a friend. Snopes tried to cover her on that by saying she requested to be removed from the case but I call BS on that.
    I wonder if she would’ve thought it was funny if her daughter had been raped and the pedophile who did it passed a polygraph.
    I’m guessing no on that one as well…

    • Manny Borges

      You should actually read the article, the factcheck,org AND the snopes site. She chuckled about not ever believing a lie detector again. Never about the outcome of the case. I think you will also find Factcheck and snopes basically say the same thing.

      • Shelly Kay

        Fact-check and Snopes are both liberal biased websites who’ve been proven wrong in the past. I can clearly hear the words come out of Hillary’s own mouth in the audio recorded interview that was conducted before her book was even written.
        She admits to accepting the case as a favor for a friend. If you can’t hear that you’re either deaf, or you’re listening to the edited version. There is a 6 minute recording on youtube, listen for yourself

  • Larua
  • Peter Smith

    Seriously, who takes Snopes seriously? They aren’t credible and have no better idea about the facts than we do. Everything I have ever read form them is strongly pro-government. Not a source I would ever utilize.

  • Charles Byrd

    Most of those “fact check” sites are Soros run dark money ops.

  • Brigadon

    ‘a bad imitator of politifact’?

    Politifact is every bit as biased and incorrect as snopes. They have been imitating Politifact quite well.

  • ronc

    I used to go to “Snopes” for fact checking, but over time I sensed that they were biased in their reviewes, sooooo… no more. Take note sponsors!

  • Brenda

    After reading this…it is pretty clear that Baxter Dmitry could not pass a grade school SRA test.

  • sacreddancer
  • Conservative Mark

    Snopes is not, and never has been, a reliable fact checking source.

  • Accidentalreader

    Clinton was being an Honorable Lawyer?

    I completely disagree.

    Blood evidence had been cut from a pair of underpants, tested, found to be incriminating. And the piece cut out was destroyed in the testing process, leaving just the underwear without blood.

    Hillary recognized this, requested the evidence be re-tested by a higher power, knowing it would be impossible. This resulted in the evidence being disregarded by the court.

    That was not “good defense”. It was system gaming. Not the same thing.

    Good lawyers in a just system should try to figure out the truth of a matter, and the appropriate punishments. It’s not a game where you try to hide evidence and spin things to help clients get away with rape or other crimes that you know they are guilty of. Hillary was being manipulative and frankly psychopathic, and it allowed a child rapist to avoid punishment.

    I understand that many consider this “normal” in today’s world, and I suppose it is. Sickness and psychopathy are commonplace. And Hillary is a prime example.

    That doesn’t mean I think Trump is any better.

    Voting for either is just a way to trick people into aligning with evil.

    • Tabbytha

      You’re right… Why people keep putting up with this deep continuing corruption I can’t fully fathom… I know some of why they think it is normal, but still it boggles my mind that they do think this is normal, that they keep putting up with it… how bad do things have to get before people say “enough!” ???? I guess things haven’t gotten bad enough for people to react. Sad, because psychopaths prey on people and if this is considered normal that means most people are thinking/ acting as prey by allowing the psycho-predators to continually act without punishment or consequence…

  • msland1419

    Snopes is just truthful enough about many things of non importance that they can take a strong liberal slant on issues of real importance. Pitiful.

  • Robert Kriegar

    What an absolutely outrageous fake story. You did not “outsnope” snopes at all. In fact, they told the story accurately, and you have not done so. Read the court records, idiots.