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

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: baxter@yournewswire.com
Follow: @baxter_dmitry
Baxter Dmitry
  • 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.

          • Achmed

            Any physician, whether patient’s names are given or not, if discussing a case/procedure/patient, without it being a clinical discussion with peers, has violated HIPAA and should have their license revoked.

          • Ron

            And what does that have to do with this comment string?

          • Achmed

            Let’s see now, Ron … How about a verbatim quote from one of YOUR (special emphasis added) comments: ” I have worked with several lawyers and doctors in previous jobs and they would tell you the exact same thing I just did.” You referenced physicians, not I. Memory failing you?

          • Ron

            Do you know what “in context’ means? I never stated a physician said anything. What I DID say is that the context of a statement is everything. And that BOTH physicians and lawyers would agree. You are trying to create a false scenario here. See if you can logically determine why.

          • Achmed

            The body of the text, of your comment, dealt with talking about cases and how certain individuals would laugh when regaling incidents and tales. You brought physicians into the act, which one would assume (if they were logical) that attorneys-at-law and physicians would laugh while regaling tales. I did not create any “false scenario”. You created said “scenario”. Let’s see if you can logically determine why.

          • Ron

            I was hoping not to have to simplify this for you, but obviously it has become necessary to do so. I SPECIFICALLY mentioned physicians and lawyers because they frequently discuss cases amongst themselves. The CONTEXT which for whatever reason escapes you, is that if a physician is talking about a particular case, he or she will do so in the CONTEXT of whatever is appropriate. They might joke about the case, they might be pissed off about the case, or sad about the case, or whatever. But when they talk about the case, they will do so in context and based on what can legally be said WITHOUT breaking patient confidentiality.

          • Achmed

            You’re flailing and floundering, Ron. The referenced Clinton laughing was NOT with colleagues. Rather, it was an interview. I hate to simplify this for you, Ron, but obviously it has become necessary to do so. Again, Clinton was not having a conversation with a peer or colleague. It was an interview. Therefore, her laughing about the case, as you referenced attorneys-at-law and physicians do … is a major fail. Obfuscation is obviously not one of your strong points. I had not laughed at you, until this point. Now, I find you exceedingly humorous.

          • 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.

          • Robert Kriegar

            You better quit smoking that stuff before you hurt yourself. Talk about being paid to spin yarn into gold. You’re the prime candidate.

          • 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.

          • Robert Kriegar

            This is exactly like their out of context hoax regarding Hillary’s remarks regarding Benghazi. These people are wastes of space.

          • Ron

            They play the “scandal” card to perfection when it comes to motivating their uninformed and willfully ignorant base. It has worked for decades now, so why stop?

          • Robert Kriegar

            Exactly. Closeted, scandalous reprobates. And, like cheating spouses, they accuse everyone of what they’re doing. The “I am, so they must be too” mentality.

          • Ron

            Notice how it’s worked for Trump so far. Every time, almost without exception, when his obvious corruption is mentioned, he tweets out a response specifically designed to detract from it.
            The problem he has now however, is that Mr. Mueller will not be tweeted away into the sunset. But I guarantee you if the evidence that is evidently piling up against him ends with his resignation and imprisonment, his supporters will never agree that he was corrupt. They will blame the “liberal media” and Republicans in Congress who obviously hate Trump’s guts.

          • Robert Kriegar

            For real. Deflect, redirect, and avoid. If we’re going to acknowledge it at all, it’s everyone else’s fault. (Rolling my eyes)

  • 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

          • Bob19006

            Nazis were Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. I don’t see capitalism in there anywhere but I do see socialism which to me makes them big strong armed government socialists. That is about as far as you could possibly get from small govt low tax free market capitalist tea partiers.

      • 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?

    • rxantos

      How exactly is it a requirement to feel happy and seem funny that her client is guilty and she allowed him to go free?

      I understand that a lawyer has to defend its client, even if its guilty. But feeling happy for letting a guilty go and then making fun of the victim is the mentality of a sociopath, not a lawyer.

      • limitedlogic

        Sociopath / Lawyer….many are capable of being both. Laughing about the results of the polygraph, specifically, is also laughing because he passed it and she understood the irony that her defense of a guilty man would benefit from the results. That would certainly be considered laughing at the outcome of the case by a prudent individual.

  • Chris Sky

    SNOPES is ALWAYS full of sh*t…

    • Damian

      just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean it’s a lie. That’s Trump’s schtick and he looks like an idiot for doing it.

      • Robert Kriegar

        For real. SMH.

        • Scott D

          You wouldn’t know real if it bit you in the ass little man. Nice photoshopped photo, “real” man.

          • Robert Kriegar

            Of all the people in this world to talk, you’re the last one in this world with any room to do so. I’m sorry that you’re insecure about my non-photoshopped picture, little man. But it sure beats your non-existent picture when it comes to bring “real”, lol.

      • Scott D

        You are correct, and it’s words you also live by. They actually were lies. They were caught spinning or just outright covering up. It’s not about “not liking the answer”.

        • Robert Kriegar

          Scott D
          You mean like Trump, on the daily? Or the whole Benghazi thing?

          They didn’t outright lie at all. They simply laid out the facts. It’s hilarious that you people love it when Trump speaks his mind, but hate it when anyone else does.

          In fact, there is more. The prosecution lost and destroyed evidence. The victim’s mother was pushing the DA to make a plea deal. She didn’t want to wait for trial, it would slow down her life with a new love interest, in a new trailer park. The only person in the whole situation that didn’t like any of it was Hillary Clinton, who was required by the court to represent him, and he demanded a woman lawyer to represent him. Not that you’d know a whole lot. You just drool when you think Faux News had a gotcha moment. In fact, they didn’t. But you’re probably still wasting oxygen about Benghazi, uranium, and Hillary’s death count. Fake news, brah. Go back to Breitbart, troll.

          • Achmed

            There’s our little robi, once again, humiliating herself. NO one forced her to take the case. Listen to the audio, if you have the intellectual capacity to understand (which is seriously doubtful). The prosecutor specifically made a request, to Clinton, to take the case. She was not a public defender. She was not ordered by a judge to take the case, pro bono OR paid. She took the case because the prosecutor requested that she do so, as a favor. She was under NO legal obligation to take the case. Why, little robi, must you continually humiliate yourself, you poor dear little thing?

  • 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?

        • Trebor Kaye

          Where do I even begin?

          • http://cpupilot2000.wordpress.com John D Slavik

            So you admit . . . you have nothing. LOL

          • Robert Kriegar

            No. You’re just in denial. IDGAF

          • Achmed

            Oh goodness, there’s our little robi again. TOO funny. Simply hilarious. It is SO much fun watching her humiliate herself.

          • Robert Kriegar

            It’s actually more fun watching you guys humiliate yourselves, licking Putin’s boots and fawning over your orangutan. Achmed. An apt name for you.

          • Achmed

            Thanks, little robi. You, humiliating yourself, was bringing large bursts of laughter. It may seem cruel, but I have had SO much fun laughing AT you.

          • Robert Kriegar

            Not half as much fun as I have laughing at you Trumpbots, I’m sure 😀

      • Duane Savage

        That’s some stupid crap you spewed out, right there.

        • Robert Kriegar

          Duane
          In your delusional state, I suppose. Roy Moore is cool too, right?

          • Duane Savage

            In my state, you’re an idiot

          • Robert Kriegar

            Listen, kid. Your state full of idiots, and you seem to be their ringleader.

            Thankfully, there are also nice smart people there as well. I know, I used to live there.

          • Duane Savage

            I’m old enough to be your father, little boy. One thing I’ve learned in my long life is how to spot an idiot.. and you’ve been spotted.

          • Achmed

            When you moved out, robi, it raised the collective Stanford-Binet score by more than a few points.

          • Robert Kriegar

            If you had any clue what life was outside of your mommy’s basement, that might be a worthwhile comment. Do you have anything besides ad hominems? Ivan?

          • http://cpupilot2000.wordpress.com John D Slavik

            You apparently forgot if you are going to believe a simple accusation with zero evidence and no court finding then that means you also have to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton is a murderer and a traitor. You can’t have it both ways based on nothing but your own obvious bias.

          • Robert Kriegar

            Number one, I haven’t forgotten anything of the kind. You people did. And after years, and half a billion tax dollars, you still never got it through your heads. Much less the fact that Hillary Clinton was not in command of the military to begin with.

            There is more than enough proof, staged deniability, and collusion thus far already. So that’s out the window. Your man is, literally, a creep, an adulterer, and a letch. Sorry about it, much less a commie lover, and you people have become that as well, just to support that fraud, after your party has done nothing but cry about commies and communism for decades. Hypocrites. And now, you people just cry about socialism instead. Partyline sheep.

          • http://cpupilot2000.wordpress.com John D Slavik

            You sir (I’m being facetious) are an idiot. You simply assume what I am talking about. Let this dial into your addled brain. I was a mid-level IT manager working under contract for both the DoD and DoS from 1998 to 2012. During that period I had the duty to report, assist in the prosecution as a witness and eventually watch as a few people were sentenced for up to 20 years in Federal prison for engaging in the exact same criminal behavior as Hillary Clinton engaged in although far less profligantly. Behavior she does not deny, behavior of which there is physical evidence. She is guilty of so many felonies it is beyond comprehension. You are in denial of facts. I’m not a party-line anything. You are a troll, a shill and a blatant liar. Bottom line…you are little more than a brainwashed reprobate and assuredly morally bereft of common Sense and critical thinking skills. Say whatever you want, it means absolutely nothing to me, you are a zero sum equation.

          • Achmed

            There’s little robi, once again, showing that she has the intellect of an aphid. Adultery, by definition, requires a party to be married. Ergo, even if we buy into the false allegations, Moore was not married at that time. Once again … PROVING that you, little robi, simply ain’t the sharpest machete in the shed. You poor, poor, dear little thing.

          • Robert Kriegar

            In all actuality, you’re mirroring your own insecurities, and projecting them upon others. I’m sorry you feel as insignificant as a bug, but I’m sure someone in your small world likes you. Chin up, buddy!

          • Achmed

            This is SO good. Conference call laughter, all directed at you. PLEASE continue to humiliate yourself. You poor, poor, dear little thing.

          • Robert Kriegar

            By the by, you reveal yourself. I wasn’t referring to Moore, the pedo, I was referring to the orangutan in the white house. You’re batting 0 and 2. Shoot for strike three, fool.

          • Achmed

            Oh this is so good. I have fifteen people following this stream, just to watch you humiliate yourself. It’s been nothing but uproarious laughter .. watching you humiliate yourself, time after time, after time. PLEASE continue, oh little robi.

    • 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?

      • Jeff Nagengast

        The big thing to me was that there is an audio recording of her laughing and saying Snopes clearly states that she never laughed about the case’s outcome. She clearly laughed about the getting off a pedophile. If she truly cared, she would have fought to have him executed.

        • http://cpupilot2000.wordpress.com John D Slavik

          To do as you say would be an absolute travesty. As the article pointed out Hillary Clinton was doing her job. Yes, at times, criminals win (or in this case get off with a reduced sentence) because of stupidity or malfeasance on the part of the prosecution. But it was her job and she did it correctly. The first question any defense lawyer asks the accused is “Did you do it?” and it is done with the full understanding that the defense lawyer is going to do everything possible to provide a good defense. I can’t stand Hillary Clinton but in this particular regard it is nothing other than her being a good lawyer, that sometime means they make piss poor human beings. Think about that. Then answer this…Why do we want so many piss poor humans in charge of our government and then why are we surprised when our government turns out to be just as nasty morally as this single rape case?

          • Achmed

            Hi, joni. You seem to forget that Clinton requested a psychological and/or psychiatric analysis of the victim. She (Clinton) requested said analysis when that child was laying in a hospital, from the brutal beating that she received from the rapist. “… History of fantasizing …”, when there was none, Clinton actually made that up.

      • Achmed

        Hi, Manuel. Clinton was never a public defender. The prosecutor stated that the alleged perpetrator wanted female counsel and said prosecutor personally asked for her to take the case. She admits that she “reluctantly” took the case. Where in the world do you get off spouting such lies as Clinton having been a “PD”. Do you really like lying or are you pathological?

        • Robert Kriegar

          You’re drunk. She was appointed by the judge as his PD, reluctant as in “I don’t want to represent that creep”, and where do you get off spouting such lies?

          • Achmed

            And, little robi, are a buffoons buffoon. Listen to the tape. She was NOT a public defender, as that is a salaried position. She was NOT appointed by any magistrate or judge. In her own words (again, listen to the tape if you are able to comprehend) the prosecutor asked her, as a favor, to take the case. Where do you get off spouting such lies? Oh, I forgot .. You seem to LOVE humiliating yourself.

  • 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.

        • beware the mac

          WWAAHH! NAZI!

      • 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

    • Robert Kriegar

      What did they say about the Republican election official arrested for flipping votes? Or the broad who voted for Dump twice, because other people cheat?

      • Achmed

        Oh, goodness .. little robi, once again. Why do you insist upon humiliating yourself, you poor dear little thing.

        • Robert Kriegar

          Do shut up, idiot. Why should I not join the throngs of you Repugnatards that have?

          • Achmed

            There’s our little robi, humiliating herself again. You are such an erudite little thing, aren’t you? Your mommy must be VERY (special emphasis added) proud of you. TOO funny. Simply hilarious!

    • Robert Kriegar

      Yeah right. You notice I don’t hear you yammering about the election official arrested and charged with flipping votes for Trump.

  • 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

        • Robert Kriegar

          Lies. Until. Sorry.

      • Achmed

        Hello again, Manuel. Did you listen to the audio? It is still available and she did laugh, multiple times, within that taping (yes, that’s old enough that it was actual tape). Not the sharpest machete In the shed, are you Manuel?

    • Robert Kriegar

      She was appointed to the case. Her “friend” referred her. She did try to get out of it, and the judge declined to release her. You have to know how all this works in real life. This sort of thing goes on every day.

  • 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.

    • Damian

      you misspelled “Koch Brothers”.

      • Charles Byrd

        If it was the Koch brothers paying off Snopes and Politifact, the bias would be way different.

  • 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.

  • bobby

    There is no proof one way or the other of Pizzagate, Yet Snopes calls it fake even though the owners facebook page and other questionable child perversion art is displayed would suggest quite a lot of circumstantial evidence exists including satanic Spirit Cooking Parties. I guess Snopes ignores the obvious?

  • richardruscoe

    So what part of this report isn’t verifiable? Snopes, and fluoride, lead to a dependency on authority.

  • Damian

    Can I pick and choose which bits of an article I use and selectively answer the comments with misleading and deceitful answers and still consider myself a “truth teller”? Baxter Dmitry does.

  • Steve

    Shoot them.

  • Robert Kriegar

    They aren’t trolls when they are telling the truth in response to repugnatard lies. Now, let’s talk about the Republican and Russian trolls, shall we? We can include Breitbart, Bannon, and Jones with them.

    • Scott D

      Not a single piece of evidence to back up the Russian for a year of independent investigating, but you say “truth”!

      Trolls covering for Hillary is proven, and Snopes has actually been caught lying for democrats, you say “response to repugnitard (you do realize thats not a word and makes you sound even more unintelligent, right) lies”.

      So, in your eyes, republicans can’t even hope to win one. You should examine your own personal bias.

  • Tom Daoust

    Several years ago when there were NOT many fact checkers I trusted Snopes. Then I began checking the fact checkers and found that they all have a bias. The bias is generally found in their choice of who to defend against false and almost false info, and who to let the vicious internet dogs devour. Hillary, Bill and the Clinton Foundation get lots of sympathy from Snopes and is not to be trusted if you’re looking for truth.

  • Cato Maior

    excellent. A web site that lies and doctors pictures to change opinions is basically instrumental to totalitarianism.

  • Cole

    You realize, this site has been indentified as a top site that is helping spread propaganda for the Russian government, right? It’s on the watch list.