Another FAKE “Fact-Check” from Snopes!
tl;dr: The President’s “phony source” really was a phony source.
So today in my Google “News Feed” (Fig. 1) I find many references to the President’s tweet (Fig. 2) regarding the phony “source” for a lie in the New York Times:
Rather than even bothering with the lies from the “Mainstream Media” (MSM), I took a look at what Snopes had to say (Fig 3).
Before I discuss the lies in this fake “fact-checking” article, I want to mention another point about this obvious propaganda site: they can’t be archived!
At least, not using my preferred resource, the Wayback Machine. When I tried, I received a message (Fig 4) telling me the “URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.”
The very fact that Snopes prohibits archiving of their stories means that once they’ve fixed their lies it’s supposed to be impossible to prove they ever took place. (I do have a backup screen print that I’ll deploy in an update if they fix their nonsense and try to hide it.)
This clearly demonstrates that, whatever they claim, they’re a propaganda site, not a “fact-checking” site.
And, indeed, their so-called “fact-check” is just another lie. They claim that the “phony source” referenced by the President is actually “a White House official conducting a briefing for reporters under the condition that the official not be named.”
In the actual screen print of the story (Fig. 5), we see that they (NYTimes) say “holding it on June 12 would be impossible”, but when we reference the Snopes article, here’s a pair of actual quotes (see Fig. 6 for context): “There’s really not a lot of time,” and “[…] June 12 is in ten minutes.”
Now, this is clearly not saying it’s impossible. The NYTimes clearly invented a non-existent White House Official for its lie.
Oh, “it wasn’t a lie” you say? Then what was it? Are reporters and editors at the NYTimes so stupid that they don’t know the difference between one official’s personal opinion that there’s a time crunch (my paraphrase, see Fig. 6) and “impossible”?
Are the “fact-checkers” at Snopes so stupid that they don’t understand that difference?
How could any “news source” or “fact-checker” be this stupid? They couldn’t. The only explanation that makes sense is that they’re propagating propaganda (i.e. lying) rather than news.
“Difficult” would be reasonable. “Impossible” is clearly either a lie, or egregious stupidity.
It should be clear to everybody who looks into it that the entire MSM establishment, including various tendentious “fact-checkers” is nothing but a propaganda organ for an establishment more interested in rationalizing their agenda than telling the truth. Snopes didn’t even bother hiding the fact that the actual statement by their “White House official conducting a briefing” didn’t back up the NYTimes’ “holding it on June 12 would be impossible”.
Now, if the MSM had any sort of reasonable relationship with the President, he could have simply tweaked them for jumping to a false conclusion. But the MSM, especially the “Failing @nytimes” has been consistently attacking this administration, filling their pages with lies, stuff taken out of context, and worst possible interpretations at every opportunity.
The same is true of the fake “fact-checking” sites such as Snopes. Their extreme bias is evident to anybody who doesn’t share it. It’s all part of an egregious anti-Trump echo chamber intended (IMO) to keep Trump-haters in their delusional state.
These people need to catch up. The USA has an elected president, who is doing a creditable job (if far from perfect). The only effect of this MSM hatred is to joggle the President’s elbow, which arguably could be treason. (The US is still technically at war with North Korea.)
And to keep the poor, deluded, Trump-haters from shedding their illusions and realizing that things aren’t really that bad after all. Why does the MSM want this?
Think about it.
Update (8:46 am 5/27/18): it’s been pointed out to me that what I “linked to is not a Snopes fact check, it’s just a link on their site to an AP news story, clearly labeled as news.”
As I replied:
However, that “clearly labeled” is pretty unobtrusive, and they’re best known for fact-checking.
Given their business, I’m going to hold them responsible for fact-checking whatever “news” they print without comment.
Update (1:00 pm 5/27/18): I’ve been routed a tweet with a “recording”:
I’ve listened closely and did not hear “impossible” or anything meaning it. Feel free to comment with the exact second if you feel I’ve missed something.
