Politifact gets a pants on fire

[Votto]

Politifact gets buried online after its 'fact-check' on Rittenhouse trial is completely contradicted | Blaze Media

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case. Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha...

www.theblaze.com

The Left wing site Politifact that claims to fact check everything and is the Joe Biden source of all truthiness, that is, when Fauci is not available, gets caught espousing flat out lies about the Rittenhouse case

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case.

Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Prosecutors allege that the 18-year-old is guilty of murder, but his attorney is arguing that he acted in self-defense.

Politifact's attempt at fact-checking from Aug. 2020 didn't stand the test of time after Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Rittenhouse on Monday.

Schroeder ruled that Rittenhouse was legally allowed to possess a rifle because of Wisconsin's open carry law, as long as it met certain minimum length requirements.

The fact-check claimed it was not legal for Rittenhouse, who was seventeen at the time of the shooting, to possess the rifle without parental supervision.

The article noted that there was an exception for some teenagers in cases where they were hunting, but added, "Rittenhouse wasn't in Kenosha to hunt."

A Facebook post says, \u201cAt 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.\u201d That's False.https://bit.ly/2YHRf2X
— PolitiFact Wisconsin (@PolitiFact Wisconsin)1598649214

Many on social media took the news organization to task for levying up the claims clearly contradicted by the ruling of the judge in Rittenhouse's case.

"This fact check was always wrong, but now that the weapons charge has been dropped it's officially PANTS ON FIRE," replied Mark Hemingway.

"You guys really should look for another line of work," read one popular tweet.

"Are you going to factcheck yourself now?" asked another critic.

"Issue an immediate retraction," demanded another popular tweet.

Politifact also noted that its finding had been used as a basis for Facebook to censor claims on their social media platform.

What a bunch of losers

 

[Oddball]

PolitiFact is fake nooz.

 

[Votto]

PolitiFact is fake nooz.

It's like they don't even try anymore.

 

[pknopp]

The law had intended for what he did to be illegal. The charges were tossed because it was poorly written.

 

[hadit]

The law had intended for what he did to be illegal. The charges were tossed because it was poorly written.

The point is, when you set yourself up as an arbiter of truth, it is incumbent on you to make sure you're right, and they did not.

 

[progressive hunter]

The law had intended for what he did to be illegal. The charges were tossed because it was poorly written.

got any proof of that??

dont worry I'll wait,,

 

[ColonelAngus]

Politifact gets buried online after its 'fact-check' on Rittenhouse trial is completely contradicted | Blaze Media

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case. Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha...

www.theblaze.com

The Left wing site Politifact that claims to fact check everything and is the Joe Biden source of all truthiness, that is, when Fauci is not available, gets caught espousing flat out lies about the Rittenhouse case

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case.

Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Prosecutors allege that the 18-year-old is guilty of murder, but his attorney is arguing that he acted in self-defense.

Politifact's attempt at fact-checking from Aug. 2020 didn't stand the test of time after Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Rittenhouse on Monday.

Schroeder ruled that Rittenhouse was legally allowed to possess a rifle because of Wisconsin's open carry law, as long as it met certain minimum length requirements.

The fact-check claimed it was not legal for Rittenhouse, who was seventeen at the time of the shooting, to possess the rifle without parental supervision.

The article noted that there was an exception for some teenagers in cases where they were hunting, but added, "Rittenhouse wasn't in Kenosha to hunt."


Many on social media took the news organization to task for levying up the claims clearly contradicted by the ruling of the judge in Rittenhouse's case.

"This fact check was always wrong, but now that the weapons charge has been dropped it's officially PANTS ON FIRE," replied Mark Hemingway.

"You guys really should look for another line of work," read one popular tweet.

"Are you going to factcheck yourself now?" asked another critic.

"Issue an immediate retraction," demanded another popular tweet.

Politifact also noted that its finding had been used as a basis for Facebook to censor claims on their social media platform.

What a bunch of losers

The left was Just fucking owned on this one.

Lefties…..why do you always lie?

 

[pknopp]

got any proof of that??

dont worry I'll wait,,

Sheesh.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sheesh.

I know right,,

 

[DBA]

Democrats will believe literally anything that supports their narrative. Don't worry resident liberals, a blue-haired, heavily pierced, gender-confused Politifact employee is already working on a rebuttal that will soothe your soul.

 

[Votto]

The ledt was Just fucking owned on this one.

Lefties…..why do you always lie?

Why does the Left always lie?

Because they are unable to stand for anything of substance.

 

[marvin martian]

Politifact gets buried online after its 'fact-check' on Rittenhouse trial is completely contradicted | Blaze Media

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case. Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha...

www.theblaze.com

The Left wing site Politifact that claims to fact check everything and is the Joe Biden source of all truthiness, that is, when Fauci is not available, gets caught espousing flat out lies about the Rittenhouse case

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case.

Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Prosecutors allege that the 18-year-old is guilty of murder, but his attorney is arguing that he acted in self-defense.

Politifact's attempt at fact-checking from Aug. 2020 didn't stand the test of time after Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Rittenhouse on Monday.

Schroeder ruled that Rittenhouse was legally allowed to possess a rifle because of Wisconsin's open carry law, as long as it met certain minimum length requirements.

The fact-check claimed it was not legal for Rittenhouse, who was seventeen at the time of the shooting, to possess the rifle without parental supervision.

The article noted that there was an exception for some teenagers in cases where they were hunting, but added, "Rittenhouse wasn't in Kenosha to hunt."


Many on social media took the news organization to task for levying up the claims clearly contradicted by the ruling of the judge in Rittenhouse's case.

"This fact check was always wrong, but now that the weapons charge has been dropped it's officially PANTS ON FIRE," replied Mark Hemingway.

"You guys really should look for another line of work," read one popular tweet.

"Are you going to factcheck yourself now?" asked another critic.

"Issue an immediate retraction," demanded another popular tweet.

Politifact also noted that its finding had been used as a basis for Facebook to censor claims on their social media platform.

What a bunch of losers

Too bad Politifact will learn nothing from this experience, and go on to keep lying on behalf of the DemoKKKrats.

 

[Oddball]

Sheesh.

You're not a fucking mind reader...Where's your evidence of what the law "intended" to do?

 

[Oddball]

Why does the Left always lie?

Because their underlying philosophy is a lie.

 

[struth]

Politifact gets buried online after its 'fact-check' on Rittenhouse trial is completely contradicted | Blaze Media

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case. Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha...

www.theblaze.com

The Left wing site Politifact that claims to fact check everything and is the Joe Biden source of all truthiness, that is, when Fauci is not available, gets caught espousing flat out lies about the Rittenhouse case

A fact-check claim from Politifact on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse got brutal blowback online after the judge in the case sank a central charge in the case.

Rittenhouse is on trial for the fatal shooting of two people and injury of a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Prosecutors allege that the 18-year-old is guilty of murder, but his attorney is arguing that he acted in self-defense.

Politifact's attempt at fact-checking from Aug. 2020 didn't stand the test of time after Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Rittenhouse on Monday.

Schroeder ruled that Rittenhouse was legally allowed to possess a rifle because of Wisconsin's open carry law, as long as it met certain minimum length requirements.

The fact-check claimed it was not legal for Rittenhouse, who was seventeen at the time of the shooting, to possess the rifle without parental supervision.

The article noted that there was an exception for some teenagers in cases where they were hunting, but added, "Rittenhouse wasn't in Kenosha to hunt."


Many on social media took the news organization to task for levying up the claims clearly contradicted by the ruling of the judge in Rittenhouse's case.

"This fact check was always wrong, but now that the weapons charge has been dropped it's officially PANTS ON FIRE," replied Mark Hemingway.

"You guys really should look for another line of work," read one popular tweet.

"Are you going to factcheck yourself now?" asked another critic.

"Issue an immediate retraction," demanded another popular tweet.

Politifact also noted that its finding had been used as a basis for Facebook to censor claims on their social media platform.

What a bunch of losers

Another leftist propaganda source brutally beat back by the facts, and reality

 

[struth]

The law had intended for what he did to be illegal. The charges were tossed because it was poorly written.

Can you support this assertion? The law was pretty clear, the ban was only on short-barrel weapons, and the intent of the law signed in 1991 was the curb gang violence...not ban 17 year olds from having long rifles that are much harder to conceal

 

[pknopp]

Can you support this assertion? The law was pretty clear, the ban was only on short-barrel weapons, and the intent of the law signed in 1991 was the curb gang violence...not ban 17 year olds from having long rifles that are much harder to conceal

I wonder how some of you make it through the day.

Experts say gun charge dropped in Rittenhouse trial was result of poorly worded law​

Experts say gun charge dropped in Rittenhouse trial was result of poorly worded law

 

[struth]

I wonder how some of you make it through the day.

Experts say gun charge dropped in Rittenhouse trial was result of poorly worded law​

Experts say gun charge dropped in Rittenhouse trial was result of poorly worded law

Your link has this quote: "This is going to touch a nerve for some people," said John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. "But this is not an unreasonable reading of this statute by this judge."

Not sure how that supports your assertion. We can also just pull the Stat itself....what is poorly written about it? It seems pretty clear, and reasonable to understand the difference between a long barrel, and short one. If the legislation didn't want minors to have any guns they wouldn't of added that.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left was Just fucking owned on this one.

Lefties…..why do you always lie?

They lie because they can't win on the issues.

 

[pknopp]

Your link has this quote: "This is going to touch a nerve for some people," said John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. "But this is not an unreasonable reading of this statute by this judge."

Not sure how that supports your assertion. We can also just pull the Stat itself....what is poorly written about it? It seems pretty clear, and reasonable to understand the difference between a long barrel, and short one. If the legislation didn't want minors to have any guns they wouldn't of added that.

I never argued that a judge shouldn't rule on the actual wording. A judge has to rule on the law as written, poorly or not. You all make this assumption I am condemning the judge. I am not. I am condemning the illiterate law makers.