Sources for our videos on Native/First Nations privileges. Only about half are here, as giving them all would've been tedious, and they can be easily found from the links here.Read More
July 19 “But the F.B.I. person really reports directly to the president of the United States, which is interesting.” (He reports directly to the attorney general.)
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation officially reports to both the Attorney General, AND the Director of National Intelligence – both of whom report straight to the president (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation). If Trump hadn't said “really” indicating that they may as well report to the president, since FBI heads essentially do anyway, but if he hadn't said “really”, I would've considered this a lie. However, his statement was clearly a colloquialism, and a summing up of what FBI heads actually do. So I can only hit a maximum verdict of “misleading” here. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, we all know who the Director is supposed to report to on paper.
It's definitely unfortunate that people need to twist somebody's words so much in order to justify their hatred of him. The fact that I even need to break down simple things like context, facts, statistics, colloquialisms, and idioms for presumably grown adults PAID to report these things, is ridiculous. Most of these only took about 20 seconds of basic research, or just reading the quote in context. Unfotunately I'll never reach a broad enough audience to inform all the people that immediately bought into the NYTimes' and the Washington Post's lists of Trump "lies", to reinform them, but I tried. And taking a very Centrist approach to these claims will only alienate me on both sides, unfortunately. The fact is, Trump has lied, and misled people. Not NEARLY as much as people claim, but he has. And that fact is going to anger both the Left and the Right. In cases where I wasn't sure, the quote was confusing, I had a hard time researching it, or just wasn't really that bothered, because the actual magnitude of "lie" was so miniscule or petty that it didn't even really matter, I just rounded up to the closest statement classification, and gave the New York Times the benefit of the doubt. I leaned towards them most of the time, if I can admit my slight bias.
Out of 112 lie claims, we have 6 lies, 15 misleading statements, and 13 misinformed statements. There were also 3 white lies, where they were either so small, irrelevant, or impotent that they didn't matter. Even if you're a real "lawful good", hard-nosed, do-it-by-the-book, dogmatic individual who would consider all four of those categories to be "lies" no matter what, that's still only 37 unsatisfactory statements out of the supposed 112. On this list there were 75 verified truthful statements. That's... a lot.
Out of 112 "lies" as declared by the New York Times, only 5% of them were actually lies.
Out of this comprehensive list of all of Trump's Tweets since his presidency, of which there are 904 (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-updates-everything-president-trump-has-tweeted-and-what-it-was-about-2017-htmlstory.html), as of this recording - not even including everything he's ever said vocally - Trump's "unsatisfactory statements" only account for 4%. Actual lies only account for 0.7%. Of course it should be ZERO percent, but that's still PRETTY good for a politician. I'm impressed.
As for the Washington Post's list of, as of this recording, 1114 "lies", we can calculate roughly what the actual amount of lies is very easily, since it's almost exactly 10x more (rounding up). Since the Washington Post was the second most used source on this list, next to the New York Times themselves, it's safe to say the Washington Post is about as dishonest and biased. It should be a pretty close 1:1 comparison. So, extrapolating our data, roughly 60 of the WaPo's 1114 "lies" list are ACTUALLY lies, how big or small they are completely subjective, of course. 150 misleading statements, 130 cases where he was minsinformed, and 30 irrelevant white lies. There should be 750 statements that are verified truth, and not lies at all. The likelihood of WaPo taking down 750 of their claims is... yeah, never going to happen.
Does Trump lie? Aye, as does almost everybody on earth. Is it a rampant problem in Trump's case? Not so much, in fact, for a politician, he's doing quite well. Will people stop jumping down his throat the second he says or does anything, misconstruing them to be "evil" somehow, now that the truth is out? Probably not, most people are just too immature for that, it seems. But I tried. Very hard.
Feb. 28 “We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials.” (They can't lobby their former agency but can still become lobbyists.)
Nevertheless, it is a ban. Exactly what Trump said. The source confirms this, the only thing you could criticize is a possible diminishment of transparency. It's still limiting lobbying, thus helps with draining the swamp. Verdict: not a lie.
March 3 “It is so pathetic that the Dems have still not approved my full Cabinet.” (Paperwork for the last two candidates was still not submitted to the Senate.)
It would seem that internally some paperwork was delayed for various reasons. They should have informed Trump about this, of course. While Democrats were to blame for much of the previous delays and hurdles, Trump was misinformed on this particular happenstance. Verdict: misinformed.
According to a former NSA official, Trump is right about having been under surveillance. (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-03-07/nsa-whistleblower-bill-binney-says-trump-is-absolutely-right-about-wiretap-claims) The New York Post also puts NYT in a bit of a logical quandary, as they insinuated on January 20th that Trump had indeed been under surveillance. (https://nypost.com/2017/03/08/did-the-new-york-times-already-tell-us-trump-was-wiretapped/) (picture provided)
There's also Nunes' testimony: (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-transition-members-surveillance-devin-nunes-barack-obama-administration-hearing-a7644431.html)
As well as the fact that Manafort was tapped, and staying at Trump Tower: (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html)
Considering all the DNC crookedness we SAW, and the fact that Flynn was inexplicably accurately fingered as having spoken with Russians, then it's very, VERY likely Trump or people on his team other than Manafort were tapped in some way. He wouldn't have written the Tweet had something not tipped him off. Verdict: not a lie.
We just went over this. Not a lie. Just not wholly proven yet (only mostly proven). Verdict: not a lie.
March 7 “122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!” (113 of them were released by President George W. Bush.)
Trump made the Tweet after Fox News aired a report of a former Gitmo detainee who died in a drone strike. Clearly this is what sparked Trump's interest in who released him. Turns out Trump was misinformed. I will also call out Sean Spicer for doing a particularly bad job at trying to make it seem like Trump knew what he was saying. Every instance where Spicer comes to defend him in cases where he's obviously wrong, Spicer seems to do PARTICULARLY bad jobs at spin-doctoring.
Gone over this. The extra $125 million can be attributed to Trump, as well as pushing the deal through, and he's already given credit where it's due. Misleading at most, because he says "I".
March 17 “I was in Tennessee — I was just telling the folks — and half of the state has no insurance company, and the other half is going to lose the insurance company.” (There's at least one insurer in every Tennessee county.)
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee vacated in 2017, and Humana, the sole provider, will be leaving in 2018. NYT's source looks good on a surface level, as it seems as though every county is covered... but only by one insurer, who has announced they're leaving. (http://www.thedailytimes.com/news/humana-pulls-out-of-obamacare-marketplace-in-tennessee-in-leaving/article_0f84b47a-da21-550c-961d-f622f124c3cd.html) The ACA, once again, is awful, pushing insurers out, stranding people. And Trump, once again, did not lie.
This one does indicate Trump only takes credit for the negotiation. This one is not a lie or misleading.
March 21 “To save taxpayer dollars, I’ve already begun negotiating better contracts for the federal government — saving over $700 million on just one set of airplanes of which there are many sets.” (Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump.)
Again, context is his negotiation. Again, not a lie.
March 22 “I make the statement, everyone goes crazy. The next day they have a massive riot, and death, and problems.” (Riots in Sweden broke out two days later and there were no deaths.)
We've gone over this. Sweden is indeed a horrible place to live in some parts. Death is rampant. Rape is rampant. Problems are rampant. "A day later" is very clearly a figure of speech. I can only label this one misinformed at MOST. And barely.
March 22 “NATO, obsolete, because it doesn’t cover terrorism. They fixed that.” (It has fought terrorism since the 1980s.)
The Trump quote itself is misleading, there's more to it, but ignoring that... The source implies that NATO has not increased their fight on terrorism in any part due to Trump... But that's not what fellow Leftist media outlet Independant.co.uk says: (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-us-coalition-isis-iraq-syria-donald-trump-jens-stoltenberg-brussels-visit-a7755751.html) NATO joined the US-led coalition against ISIS, joined the war on terror, as of May 2017, after Trump's criticism. The NYT source seems to think he's referring to NATO's little change in intelligence sharing policies, which is incorrect. Verdict: not a lie.
March 22 “Well, now, if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong — in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people.” (There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud.)
There absolutely is. We've gone over this. Do your research, NYTimes, before you call yourselves journalists, please. Verdict: not a lie.
Already covered. Not a lie.
March 31 “We have a lot of plants going up now in Michigan that were never going to be there if I — if I didn’t win this election, those plants would never even think about going back. They were gone.” (These investments were already planned.)
Only a few of the investments were already planned. In fact, Intel had plans to create a new factory in Arizona, and only did so after Trump was elected, because of his proposed tax cuts and deregulatory policies. GM and Ford are still adding jobs after meeting with Trump, which is especially amazing in GM's case, as in the sourced article, it states that GM had just recently CUT jobs prior to Trump's election. On Ford it says will have no net change, but nevertheless, they agreed to add over 800 jobs. If they hadn't agreed, that "no net change" would have been a net negative. Carrier agreed to keep half the jobs they were going to cut, after Trump incentivized them. The article goes on and on to try to paint these companies' meetings with Trump as having been "ineffective" or "bad", but that's just not true. Trump is a businessman, and succeeded on performing at the business levels of the presidency quite well. He's saved tens of thousands of jobs, as seen in NYT's OWN source. There is also the fact that "when Trump met with CEO’S in the white house, Ford, Chrysler and Intel all agreed not to build in England, Scotland and Ireland like they were planning to but will build here instead ." Verdict: not a lie.
April 2 “And I was totally opposed to the war in the Middle East which I think finally has been proven, people tried very hard to say I wasn’t but you’ve seen that it is now improving.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)
That was the very first issue I addressed. I found it overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. Verdict: still not a lie.
April 2 “Now, my last tweet — you know, the one that you are talking about, perhaps — was the one about being, in quotes, wiretapped, meaning surveilled. Guess what, it is turning out to be true.” (There is still no evidence.)
Plenty of evidence, just not where the New York Times wants to look. Already addressed. Not a lie.
April 5 “You have many states coming up where they’re going to have no insurance company. O.K.? It’s already happened in Tennessee. It’s happening in Kentucky. Tennessee only has half coverage. Half the state is gone. They left.” (Every marketplace region in Tennessee had at least one insurer.)
Already gone over this. The New York Times is being incredibly dishonest and misleading here. Verdict: very much NOT a lie.
April 6 “If you look at the kind of cost-cutting we’ve been able to achieve with the military and at the same time ordering vast amounts of equipment — saved hundreds of millions of dollars on airplanes, and really billions, because if you take that out over a period of years it’s many billions of dollars — I think we’ve had a tremendous success.” (Much of the price cuts were already projected.)
Once again, something we've already covered. Since Trump did not use "I've" here, but "we've", this is considered not a lie. Also, his overall point was over time he would be saving the country money.
April 11 “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late. I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve.” (He knew Steve Bannon since 2011.)
Trump MET Bannon in 2011, according to NYT's source, themselves, for the billionth time... doesn't mean he knew him as a person. However, being as Trump stated he knew both Bannon and Kellyanne "for many years", it is likely that Trump really got to know Bannon in November 2015, when he was on Bannon's radio show. While NYT is incorrect, after my own research I have confirmed that this is a lie from Trump.
April 12 “You can't do it faster, because they're obstructing. They're obstructionists. So I have people — hundreds of people that we're trying to get through. I mean you have — you see the backlog. We can't get them through.” (At this point, he had not nominated anyone for hundreds of positions.)
The NYTimes source goes to their article again, which in turn sources a "nonpartisan" committee in association with a VERY partisan news source – the Washington Post. Coincidentally, also one of the major "sources" for all of these claims, when the sources aren't NYT. So it is very much biased. (https://ourpublicservice.org/issues/presidential-transition/political-appointee-tracker.php) But beyond that, in the source, Trump had an average wait time of 54 days for confirmation, as opposed to 41 for Obama, 35 for Bush, 30 for Clinton, and 32 for Bush Sr. Almost TWO WEEKS longer than Obama, in terms of wait times. He was also tied with Obama for failed nominations at 8, the highest of the group (excluding Bush, for outstanding reasons). Finally, according to their own source, 193 appointments were sent to the Senate and awaiting approval, most likely being hassled and blocked by Democrats, considering the excessive wait times. NYT's own source betrays them. Not a lie.
April 12 “The New York Times said the word wiretapped in the headline of the first edition. Then they took it out of there fast when they realized.” (There were separate headlines for print and web, but neither were altered.)
The NYTimes headline: (picture provided)
April 12 “The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more NATO can do in the fight against terrorism. I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.” (NATO has been engaged in counterterrorism efforts since the 1980s.)
Already went over this, it would seem that Trump did in fact get NATO moving. Verdict: not a lie.
April 12 “Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they’ve been fighting it for many months and so many more people died.” (The campaign was expected to take months.)
NYTime's source is unsurprisingly the Washington Post, except it is merely a transcript of what Trump said in an interview. All he says is that Obama was talking about hitting Mosul for four months, but never did it. Then Trump's quote came into play. I have been unable to a find a source that says the US campaign was expected to take months. If the NYTimes has an official government document that proves their claim, perhaps they should share it. Otherwise: not a lie.
It was caught on video that there was. I have already debunked this. Verdict: not a lie.
Taking the NYTimes at face value here, it would appear that Trump did reverse his stance on China's currency manipulation (to be fair, they have done it in the past), and then deny that he changed his stance. Part of me wants to just call this a lie, but digging deeper into that interview, he says that he doesn't want to go after them over currency manipulation, due to bigger issues. The interview he did with the Wall Street Journal where supposedly Trump said, "They're not currency manipulators," is mostly unavailable to me, but at the very start of the article, it says the Trump administration will not LABEL China a currency manipulator. Two important distinctions. But since I don't have all the facts available to me, and this issue is so small and petty, I will label this as simply misleading. All that matters is Trump's current stance on China, anyway.
This one is dubious in context. (https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83/Transcript-of-AP-interview-with-Trump?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics) The interviewer asks him about Hillary's emails, and why the RNC was seeking to arrest Assange, and Trump says when WikiLeaks "came out", he'd never heard of it. WikiLeaks began in 2006, so this would seem to corroborate what Trump was saying – that he hadn't heard of it until 2010. But the context could also possibly imply that he was saying he hadn't heard of it until Hillary's emails – thus this one is confusing. I should just mark this as "misinformed", since it seems like Trump just forgot about WikiLeaks between the years of 2010 and 2016, but since the context is so dubious, I will upgrade it to misleading as a show of good faith. You're welcome, NYT.
April 27 “I want to help our miners while the Democrats are blocking their healthcare.” (The bill to extend health benefits for certain coal miners was introduced by a Democrat and was co-sponsored by mostly Democrats.)
The bill was modelled after a Republican bill titled "HELP for Coal Miners Health Care Act". It was combined with Democrat-written bill "Miners Protection Act". The original bill passed through Republican coal-state man, Mitch McConnell, but McConnell changed his approval after the bills were combined. The reasons for this are unknown. The bill has been scrutinized for being an expensive, temporary quick-fix, however. The original bill was co-sponsored by two Republicans, and then combined with a Democrat's bill. One Republican (McConnell) held out, saying, “I’m in favor of a permanent fix on miner’s health care." So this one is completely misrepresented by NYT. We also have no idea what happened behind the scenes, and who opposed what and when. We only have McConnell's short statement, and as such this one is a write off. "Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt." Verdict: not a lie. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/retired-coal-miners-get-health-care-fix-pension-problems-remain)
April 28 “The trade deficit with Mexico is close to $70 billion, even with Canada it’s $17 billion trade deficit with Canada.” (The U.S. had an $8.1 billion trade surplus, not deficit, with Canada in 2016.)
The US had an 11 billion dollar deficit with Canada, as of April 2017, according to official statistics (https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264). I'm really not sure why NYT thinks they had any sort of surplus, perhaps they did in 2016 (as a Canadian, I can tell you we export a LOT to the US, including a massive amount of water and lumber)? Trump was in the middle of an interview, so I would not expect him to be able to remember EXACT figures off the top of his head, but he was pretty close on this, within reason. Verdict: absolutely not a lie. C'mon, New York Times...
Ossoff's transit model will certainly hike up taxes, no matter how you slice it, unless it is entirely public-funded, which is unlikely. Ossoff states he doesn't want to see people thrown off of their coverage suddenly, by repealing Obamacare, but Trump's plan was always "repeal and replace". Ultimately, he was for keeping the destructive Obamacare, and just fixing the issues. This point is neutral. On immigration, he supports legalizing 11 million illegal immigrants, which is of course moronic, but NOT for open borders – in fact, he prefers more border security. With one point confirming Trump, one against, and one neutral, I can only chalk this up to misinformed. That's about it.
April 28 “The F-35 fighter jet program — it was way over budget. I’ve saved $725 million plus, just by getting involved in the negotiation.” (Much of the price cuts were planned before Trump.)
Once more, not a lie.
April 29 “As you know, I've been a big critic of China, and I've been talking about currency manipulation for a long time. But I have to tell you that during the election, number one, they stopped.” (China stopped years ago.)
The upward trend of China's currency started to be consistent around mid-2015, and saw a considerably more aggressive spike during the election cycle (graph provided). The trend started earlier, but during the election it saw a hefty upward slope. This particular quote does not say there is a causality between the two however, and is not inaccurate. Verdict: not a lie.
April 29 “I've already saved more than $725 million on a simple order of F-35 planes. I got involved in the negotiation.” (Much of the price cuts were planned before Trump.)
Once more, not a lie.
April 29 “We're also getting NATO countries to finally step up and contribute their fair share. They've begun to increase their contributions by billions of dollars, but we are not going to be satisfied until everyone pays what they owe.” (The deal was struck in 2014.)
Once more, not a lie.
April 29 “When they talk about currency manipulation, and I did say I would call China, if they were, a currency manipulator, early in my tenure. And then I get there. Number one, they — as soon as I got elected, they stopped.” (China stopped in 2014.)
Again, upward spike was during the election. Trump's point about them stopping before he could do something about their intentions to devalue their currency is still valid. However, his "as soon as I got elected" declaration kills this one. That's different. I'm sure it was just a figure a speech, we all know how much Trump loves those, but in this instance, I have to call this misleading.
April 29 “I was negotiating to reduce the price of the big fighter jet contract, the F-35, which was totally out of control. I will save billions and billions and billions of dollars.” (Most of the cuts were planned before Trump.)
Once more, not a lie.
76 April 29 “I think our side's been proven very strongly. And everybody's talking about it.” (There's still no evidence Trump's phones were tapped.)
Again, yes there is. Not a lie.
May 1 “Well, we are protecting pre-existing conditions. And it'll be every good — bit as good on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare.” (The bill weakens protections for people with pre-existing conditions.)
It only allowed for the possibility of opting out of the community ratings system, in special cases for insurers (presumably if they were intending to sell insurance packages to those with very little money, who could not pay for other people's maternity leaves or btrth control and all that, as they are forced to under Obamacare). Technically this is slightly different to Obamacare, and whether you think it's "every bit as good" is subjective at best, among Leftists and Rightists. There are many people who do not believe society should pay for maternity leaves, or birth control. There are many people that don't even think COMPANIES should pay for their employees maternity leaves. It's usually a personal thing. I cannot, in good faith call this a lie. This is a petty difference of opinion.
May 1 “The F-35 fighter jet — I saved — I got involved in the negotiation. It's 2,500 jets. I negotiated for 90 planes, lot 10. I got $725 million off the price.” (Much of the price cuts were planned before Trump.)
Once more, not a lie. Over and over with this one!
May 1 “First of all, since I started running, they haven't increased their — you know, they have not manipulated their currency. I think that was out of respect to me and the campaign.” (China stopped years ago.)
Again, upward spike. However, because he attributes it seemingly entirely to him and the campaign in this quote, rather than because of many factors, I have to call this misleading once more.
May 2 “I love buying those planes at a reduced price. I have been really — I have cut billions — I have to tell you this, and they can check, right, Martha? I have cut billions and billions of dollars off plane contracts sitting here.” (Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump.)
Again, not a lie. Trump is also clearly referring to events that have happened past the one that has been harped on in this list. It is likely he has cut more prices for planes since then.
May 4 “Number two, they’re actually not a currency [manipulator]. You know, since I’ve been talking about currency manipulation with respect to them and other countries, they stopped.” (China stopped years ago.)
He doesn't attribute this directly to him and his election, so he is correct. Since he's been talking about currency manipulation (for a long time), China has climbed the spike. That is true. They didn't climb the spike BECAUSE he was talking about them however. Verdict: this time not a lie.
You are. (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world) The quote is about tax cuts, so you must include corporate taxes. The US is in fact the most taxed. Verdict: not a lie.
While it is true that people only want to start a lynch mob, because the media has led them to believe that Trump's private tax returns are somehow the "smoking pistol" they need to "bring him down", I wouldn't say NOBODY is interested. That's an exaggeration on Trump's part. There are polls that show most people aren't interested, or thought he already did (https://www.imediaethics.org/imediaethics-methodology-topline-for-poll-on-donald-trumps-tax-returns/) , polls that show the population is split (http://fortune.com/2017/04/10/donald-Trump-tax-returns-poll/), and polls that say almost everyone is interested. Unfortunately, said polls are not helpful. They weren't helpful during the election either, when Trump had a 0% chance of winning. Considering nobody is really doing much to procure his tax returns beyond complaining about them, I'd say the public interest isn't as heavy as people think. Ultimately, his taxes are between him and the IRS, and he is a private citizen – you don't want to set any legal precedents to change that. If the IRS doesn't come after him, I don't see a problem. Verdict: misinformed.
Went over this. Verdict: not a lie.
May 8 “But when I did his show, which by the way was very highly rated. It was high — highest rating. The highest rating he’s ever had.” (Colbert's Late Show debut had nearly two million more viewers.)
This is sickeningly petty, and frankly, Stephen Colbert was funny once, but he's gone compeltely downhill. Why anyone would continue to watch him, I honestly cannot say, but... while Trump was misinformed about this, he did make a damning declaration about Colbert's ratings. I have to mark this verdict as, no matter how stupid it is... a lie.
May 8 “Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows — there is ‘no evidence’ of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.” (Clapper only said he wasn't aware of an investigation.)
In case you don't remember, Clapper was the one who lied under oath about Obama's NSA spying. Now that we've established he's a liar, and often claims to be "forgetful" or come up with other excuses for a myriad of things, it's important to note that he did initially say he saw no evidence of a Russian collusion. Why any of us, including Trump, should trust anything he says, I have no idea. But he then changed his tune to "I don't know if there's evidence of collusion or not, nor should I have." Ultimately, Trump seemed only aware of his first statement, and not his new statement. Thus this is firmly a misinformed verdict.
87 May 12 “Again, the story that there was collusion between the Russians & Trump campaign was fabricated by Dems as an excuse for losing the election.” (The F.B.I. was investigating before the election.)
It should say it was PUSHED by "Dems" as an excuse for losing the election, hence why no news outlets actually believe what they report about the "Russia collusion". Ex-CIA agent Snowden also wisely pointed out that if there was evidence of any collusion or election interference, we would know about it immediately (based on previous similar situations). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmovaPIsHa0). As a story, it has been fabricated. As a fruitless, pointless, and endless investigation, it... exists. I suppose. Trump's point is still overwhelmingly correct here. If it turns out there WAS a collusion, I will rectify this statement, but... innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow fo a doubt (and there are a LOT of doubts about the investigation). Verdict: not a lie until further notice.
May 12 “When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?” (Clapper said he wouldn't have been told of an investigation into collusion.)
(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evidence-of-any-russian-collusion-with-trump-campaign/article/2622452) Not according to Clapper. But again, the man who lies under oath, and frequently backtracks or dances around issues, is not a trustworthy source for anybody, Trump or the public. But because Trump seems unaware of Clapper's backtracking, the verdict for this is: misinformed.
May 13 “I'm cutting the price of airplanes with Lockheed.” (The cost cuts were planned before he became president.)
It would appear Trump has cut more budgets since. We've also already been over this, excessively. Once again: not a lie.
May 26 “Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful. We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs.” (He's referencing an arms deal that's not enacted and other apparent deals that weren't announced on the trip.)
Whether the arms deal has gone through or not yet is irrelevant. It is on its way to being enacted. This source and others were also only speculating on what Trump was talking about, with no facts to determine any deals that were discussed. The New York Times and Washington Post are pretending that nothing happened, and that Trump is just lying, which is factually untrue. Simply because some deals have not been made public (for a variety of potential reasons), does not mean they do not exist. Verdict: not a lie.
June 1 “China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.” (The agreement doesn’t allow or disallow building coal plants.)
The Daily Wire actually did all the research for this already, for me, so I'll just counter with that. (http://www.dailywire.com/news/17109/left-fact-checks-trumps-speech-making-things-frank-camp) Verdict: not a lie.
June 1 “I’ve just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.” (Trump’s figures are inflated and premature.)
The numbers are only potentially inflated in Washington Post's opinion. Because nothing has happened yet, other than the conclusion of some deals, and proposals of others, this is not a lie. They also cite lack of notificiation to Congress, and that a portion of commercial deal's can be attributed to Obama, but Obama never finalized anything. If the deals change or fall through in the future, then I can change this one. NYTimes is jumping the gun here. Verdict: not a lie.
June 4 “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” (The mayor was specifically talking about the enlarged police presence on the streets.)
This a common method of criticism for pretty much anything. The mayor was increasing police presence in response to the terror attack, and said there was no reason to be alarmed. But there absolutely is, because a terror attack had just happened. People should be alarmed. If the mayor had only increased police presence without a terror attack happening, then he could say there is no reason to be alarmed. "Hey, your car was towed and taken to impound, so I'll have to pick you up in the truck today. Don't freak out." "My car was just towed away, and you tell me not to freak out!?" You would absolutely have reason to freak out, not because you were getting a ride, but because you would NEED a ride in response to your car being towed away. See the logic now? Grade school stuff here, guys. Verdict: not a lie.
June 5 “The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.” (Trump signed this version of the travel ban, not the Justice Department.)
Trump signed both travel bans, that in itself means little. The new travel ban was pushed into play by the courts blocking the previous ban. The Justice Department was actually in favor of the original ban (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38888909), so Trump clearly mixed up the two. He's only human. Verdict: misinformed.
June 20 “Well, the Special Elections are over and those that want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN are 5 and O!” (Republicans have won four special elections this year, while a Democrat won one.)
Some people think that he was referencing an earlier Tweet he made, where he had referrred to Obama as "O" (picture provided) (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6ijcd7/potus_trump_well_the_special_elections_are_over/). I was skeptical of this, and RIGHT about to mark it as a lie, when I found his original Tweet actually carried on: "All the Fake News, all the money spent = 0" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/877372660455546880). He made a point of using the letter O and the number 0 in the same Tweet. It is indeed a joke. Here is the older tweet (picture provided). Verdict: not a lie. Could be misleading if you weren't aware of the earlier tweet, I guess, but... ehh, not a lie.
June 21 “They all say it's 'nonbinding.' Like hell it's nonbinding.” (The Paris climate agreement is nonbinding — and Trump said so in his speech announcing the withdrawal.)
Nonbinding in international law, but binding as social contracts. Otherwsie there's no point to having the Paris Agreement at ALL. Seriously, what would be the point of it, if it's nonbinding? Why did people get upset over leaving it then? It must have SOME power, no? (http://www.dailywire.com/news/17109/left-fact-checks-trumps-speech-making-things-frank-camp) Verdict: not a lie.
You are. (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world) Already covered this. Verdict: not a lie.
June 21 “You have a gang called MS-13. ... We are moving them out of the country by the thousands, by the thousands.” (The real number of gang members deported is smaller.)
"We ARE..." Once again, context is key. They are currently in the process of deporting MS-13 members. There are approximately ten thousand MS-13 members to be deported in the US. NYTImes is trying to move the goalpost to be about how many have been deported SO FAR, but that's not what the quote is about. It should also be noted that members already deported seem to cross illegally repeatedly. Tighter border security is once again a good idea here. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/23/ms-13-gang-member-deported-4-times-stabbed-2-women-abused-child-cops-say.html) (https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-deports-ms-13-gang-member-wanted-murder-honduras) Verdict: not a lie.
Medica, the last health insurer for most of Iowa, is likely to leave in 2018, due to market instability (read: ACA). Even NYT's source states that they may have changed their mind in favor of higher premiums. Nevertheless they made an announcement to leave, and if they can't get their hgiher premiums or better business, they will vacacte. Hinging your entire state medical infrastructure on just ONE insurer is not a good idea. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2017/05/03/medica-last-insurer-selling-individual-health-policies-most-iowa-likely-exit/309664001/) Aetna and Wellmark are both also cofirmed leaving in 2018 for sure. More than 70,000 people will be left without insurance, thanks to Obamacare (and this trend is not only in Iowa). Once again, Obamacare is abysmal, and Trump did not lie.
June 21 “If [farmers] have a puddle in the middle of their field ... it's considered a lake and you can't touch it. ... We got rid of that one, too, O.K.?” (The Obama environmental rule to limit pollution in the country’s waters explicitly excludes puddles.)
According to EPA.gov, the definitions of what the WotUS encompasses were changed during Trump's presidency, on February 28th, 2017 (https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/frequently-asked-questions#eochange). The best I could find for NYTimes' claim is EPA head Gina McCarthy claiming they were GOING to add clarification to exclude things like artificial lakes, ponds, and etcetera, sometime in the future. Said in May, 2015. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/27/obama-admin-asserts-dominion-over-creeks-streams-w/) Verdict: not a lie.
June 21 “Gary Cohn just paid $200 million in tax in order to take this job, by the way.” (Cohn sold Goldman Sachs stock worth $220 million.)
NYT picking on fellow Democrat Gary Cohn now, apparently. But besides that, Cohn's full severance package was $285 million, it wasn't just stock. He also took a massive pay-cut, and only receives $30,000 /year under Trump. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)#Compensation) It would seem that in order to get his ducks in a row, and pay his taxes on his severance, and take the pay cut, Cohn could be losing $200 million joining Trump; it is likely he relayed this to the president. Trump took this to mean he was taxed $200 million, and summed it up as such, because it's really not very important to go into specifics like that. Verdict: misinformed. The point stands though, Cohn lost a LOT of money taking the job.
June 21 “We’re 5 and 0.” (Republicans have won four special elections this year, while a Democrat won one.)
Searching the NYTimes' source for the quote, or for the word "special", yields nothing. Being as I cannot verify the quote, or the source, I am throwing this out.
Again, searching the NYTimes' source yields no results. Fact checking the quote in general, there are only statements about Trump being right, and jobs being created in Pennsylvania because of it (picture provided). It's possible another coal mine opened in 2014, and Trump was just unaware of it. I'm also seeing some comlpaints about coal mines being autmoated, so not actually creating new jobs, so it's also possible Trump was referencing a coal mine that's NOT entirely automated to create jobs, that Pennsylvania hasn't seen in decades. Overall this is so small and petty, and not easily verifiable, that I am declaring this not a lie.
June 22 “Former Homeland Security Advisor Jeh Johnson is the latest top intelligence official to state there was no grand scheme between Trump & Russia.” (Johnson, who had a different title, didn't say that.)
Jeh Johnson was Secretary of Homeland Security from 2013 to 2017, so he would indeed be a "top intelligence official" – the slightly different title is arbitrary in this context, especially since Trump said "former". However, Johnson only said he personally had not seen any evidence of a collusion, only the minor interactions with Russia that are already publicly available. This one is therefore misleading. Shame on you, Mr. Trump.
June 23 “We are 5 and 0 ... in these special elections.” (Republicans have won four special elections this year, while a Democrat won one.)
This one I have doubled checked, and it looks like Trump is wrong about this one. Verdict: lie.
June 27 “Ratings way down!” (CNN's ratings were at a five-year high at the time.)
One: (http://www.politicususa.com/2012/05/30/cnn-moves-right-loses-viewers.html), CNN once tried to move more to the Right and almost died. If you ever wonder why they're so biased, it's because their viewership wants an echo-chamber. Two: CNN is only staying afloat because they push the Russian narrative, despite not believing it themselves, and people are hopeful this "scandal" will somehow bring down Trump, despite no proof. Without that, CNN would be in the toilet. They're dropping the Russian narrative now... yeah, they're not doing so great. They've provided too many false, or misleading stories, and people are starting to realize that the mainstream media is INSANELY biased (I myself used to trust CNN! I did). It's also funny that Fox News is generally rated higher in viewership than CNN (http://www.newstarget.com/2017-03-05-cnn-ratings-hit-rock-bottom-as-fake-news-network-falls-below-msnbc.html). But barring all that, yes, at that particular time of Trump's quote, CNN's ratings were artificially high. I will mark this as misinformed.
June 28 “Democrats purposely misstated Medicaid under new Senate bill — actually goes up.” (Senate bill would have cut the program deeply.)
While I doubt the projections given by the Washington Post without the Senate bill, as coverage would actually decrease in 2018, it really has nothing to do with anything. Trump said the Medicaid spending would go up with the new bill, and indeed it would. The source confirms this. NYTimes tried to lead you astray with this one, by saying that the upward slope simply wouldn't be as steep. Verdict: not a lie.
June 29 “General Kelly and his whole group — they’ve gotten rid of 6,000 so far.” (The real number of MS-13 gang members who have been deported is smaller.)
Taking the source at face value, the Trump Administration has gotten rid of MS-13 gang members at a much faster rate than Obama, so it's possible that by the end of his term, 6000 will be gone in total. However, further research reveals the full quote: "The second is the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which blocks federal grants to cities that release dangerous criminal aliens back into the streets, including the vicious and disgusting and horrible MS-13 gang members. And we’re getting them out. We are getting them out. They’re going -- fast. General Kelly and his whole group -- they’ve gotten rid of 6,000 so far. We’re about 50 percent there, and we’re actually liberating towns. Like on Long Island, where I grew up -- we’re liberating towns. Those people are so happy to see our guys, and our guys are a lot tougher than the MS-13 characters." The quote was actually about santuary cities and how they are used to harbor fugitives, INCLUDING the MS-13 gang, and they were working to get said illegal aliens out of the country, and shutting down taxpayer funding to sanctuary cities (which, by the way, people should be REALLY upset about! That's an outrageous use of taxpayer money, to help illegal immigrants - criminals). These people should in jail or deported! Like, PERIOD! So, yes, they're projecting getting rid of 6000 of them, including members of the MS-13 gang. Because the way he phrases the quote is confusing, I'm going to upgrade this to "misleading" however.
July 6 “As a result of this insistence, billions of dollars more have begun to pour into NATO.” (NATO countries agreed to meet defense spending requirements in 2014.)
Already covered, not a lie.
July 17 “We’ve signed more bills — and I’m talking about through the legislature — than any president, ever.” (Clinton, Carter, Truman, and F.D.R. had signed more at the same point.)
He did specifically say "I think", for this exact reason (if you look at the exact footage), and he also conceded to FDR, as he had a major depression to deal with. It's misleading.
July 19 “The Russian investigation — it’s not an investigation, it’s not on me — you know, they’re looking at a lot of things.” (It is.)
No it isn't. It's not Trump specifically, but everyone. That's how Manafort got caught. NYT's own source confirms this several times, and also admits that the public knows very little about the probe. Innocent until proven guilty. My first instinct is to declare this not a lie, but because the phrasing is odd here, I will bump it up to misleading.
Debunking the New York Times' Definitive List of Lies for Trump.
VIDEO IS HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBJfoc-PhqU