Fact Check: PolitiFact Caught Lying About Donald Trump

by JOHN NOLTE
10 Dec 2015

The serial liars at PolitiFact have again been caught red-handed lying, this time about a poll cited by Donald Trump in his call to temporarily pause Muslim immigration. The Leftwing PolitiFact hands Trump a “Mostly False” for citing the widely respected Pew Poll and a Center for Security Policy (CSP) poll, both of which reveal a number of disturbing truths about the radicalized state of modern Islam.

First off, it is absurd for any legitimate fact-checker to attack Trump as a liar for believing and citing polls. He’s backing up his claims using data. If PolitiFact wants to attack the polls, they should attack the polls. But the DC Media is on its own jihad to annihilate Trump, so he is the one smeared as the liar.

PolitiFact then goes on to attack the inconvenient facts in the CSP poll with this fabrication:

The first problem with the Center for Security policy poll has to do with methodology. It was an online, opt-in survey, which tend to produce less reliable samples because respondents choose to participate. In traditional polling methods, everyone in a population has a chance of being selected for the survey, meaning the results generally reflect the country’s demographics.

As our own Mike Flynn pointed out Wednesday, the CSP poll uses a widely-respected methodology that includes a sample size larger than some CNN presidential polls.

The only thing wrong with the CSP poll is that leftists like PolitiFact do not like the outcome, so they call it “widely discredited” as though that makes it so.

In an outright sleazy sleight-of-hand, PolitiFact tries to rebut Trump’s point about the radical nature of some American Muslims by using a Pew study that found that a “significant minority” of American Muslims “feel that there is a great deal or a fair amount of support for extremism in the American Muslim community.”

That significant minority is a whopping 21%. PolitiFact does not tell its readers that 21% means more than a half-million American Muslims feel that way.

PolitiFact also chose not to share numerous results from Pew and other pollsters that back up Trump’s claim.

More data proving PolitiFact is one of the most partisan and dishonest rackets allowed to operate legally in the United States.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...-donald-trump/

The media is in a frenzy. It wasn't just PolitoFact that spread this falsehood about the polls. It was commentators on CNN, Fox News, writers for the many of the leading newspapers and magazines.

The truth comes out and many thanks to John Nolte and Breitbart for bringing it forth. I researched the Center for Security Policy and they are mainstream enough and reliable enough to be called to testify at Congressional Hearings, so if such a source is good enough for testimony before Congress, then it should be good enough for Trump to quote, so the media is just disgracing itself.

Quote:

---

The only thing wrong with the CSP poll is that leftists like PolitiFact do not like the outcome, so they call it “widely discredited” as though that makes it so.

---

When person or group can't change the actual facts, they frequently resort to discrediting the message or messenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

When person or group can't change the actual facts, they frequently resort to discrediting the message or messenger.

---

There's nothing wrong with challenging or discrediting the source if there's some reason to believe the source is wrong, incompetent, or biased. Reporters and journalists are supposed to investigate the source and determine if it's a bona fide source. Even bona fide sources can be wrong and often are. I investigate and research sources all the time, almost every time if the source is new or unfamiliar to me. I did that with the Center for Security Policy the first time Trump put it out.

But for PolitiFact and every other anti-Trump medium to lie about a bona fide source, bona fide because they have testified before Congress, to attack Trump, is just wrong. If the source isn't bona fide, then you attack the Center for Security Policy, not Trump who simply relied on the data the same as Congress would have done.

People have to remember that unlike most of the other candidates, Trump is not and has never been part of government anywhere so he doesn't have access to government information, not that it's any more reliable than other sources at times, but he's not part of a government body that can call up information, that can quickly access data, that has hordes of folks and staff to run down information for him. He's just a citizen like we are and the only information he has available to him is the same information that's available to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

There's nothing wrong with challenging or discrediting the source if there's some reason to believe the source is wrong, incompetent, or biased. Reporters and journalists are supposed to investigate the source and determine if it's a bona fide source. Even bona fide sources can be wrong and often are. I investigate and research sources all the time, almost every time if the source is new or unfamiliar to me. I did that with the Center for Security Policy the first time Trump put it out.

But for PolitiFact and every other anti-Trump medium to lie about a bona fide source, bona fide because they have testified before Congress, to attack Trump, is just wrong. If the source isn't bona fide, then you attack the Center for Security Policy, not Trump who simply relied on the data the same as Congress would have done.

People have to remember that unlike most of the other candidates, Trump is not and has never been part of government anywhere so he doesn't have access to government information, not that it's any more reliable than other sources at times, but he's not part of a government body that can call up information, that can quickly access data, that has hordes of folks and staff to run down information for him. He's just a citizen like we are and the only information he has available to him is the same information that's available to us.

---

Nothing you said changes or alters what I said. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? Sometimes it is a good thing, but other times it's just a hail-mary (last ditch effort) for someone that really has no logical defense or response, which happens to the the case in this instance (IMO).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Nothing you said changes or alters what I said. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? Sometimes it is a good thing, but other times it's just a hail-mary (last ditch effort) for someone that really has no logical defense or response, which happens to the the case in this instance (IMO).

---

In this instance it was journalistic dishonesty. They knew the source was credible but published it wasn't to slander Trump.