Image 01 Image 03

Hilary’s Voter Suppression Claims Earn “Pants on Fire” Politifact Rating

Hilary’s Voter Suppression Claims Earn “Pants on Fire” Politifact Rating

What’s worse is that Hillary is still out repeating claims that have been thoroughly debunked by WaPo and Politifact fact checkers.

You know it’s bad when even Politifact is giving you a “pants on fire” rating for your latest round of demagoguery.

What’s worse is that Hillary is still out repeating claims that have been thoroughly debunked by WaPo and Politifact fact checkers.

Alex Griswold from the Washington Free Beacon has the story:

“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act,” she said in a March speech, referring to the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act that subjected certain states to extra federal scrutiny. “It made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”

PolitiFact gave Clinton a “Pants on Fire” for that claim and the Washington Post fact-checker gave her “Four Pinocchios,” both the worst possible rating. The fact-checks noted that Wisconsin wasn’t even covered by the portion of the Voting Rights Act the Court struck down, that the 40,000 figure was reached by misapplying data from only one county, and there was no basis for the 80,000 figure at all.

Clinton combined the two false claims Tuesday. “Experts estimate that anywhere from 27,000 to 200,000 Wisconsin citizen voters, predominantly in Milwaukee, were turned away from the polls,” she said in a speech at George Washington University. “That’s a lot of potential voters.”

“Hillary Clinton just can’t quit Wisconsin,” PolitiFact snarked in response. “Or, more specifically, can’t quit blaming its voting system for her 2016 electoral defeat.” The fact-checker rehashed all the reasons it had laid out before, saying “Clinton’s numbers still aren’t anywhere close to accurate.”

Politifact’s official ruling:

Clinton said between 27,000 and 200,000 Wisconsinites were “turned away” from the polls in 2016 due to lack of proper identification.

But studies examining voter ID here say nothing of the sort.

They looked broadly at how voter turnout changed — which includes the far larger number who simply stayed away. Experts say there is no reliable number for how many were physically turned away, but the existing work leaves no doubt it’s far short of the range cited by Clinton.

This is the third time we have rated claims from Clinton on the Wisconsin turnout. She’s no closer on this one than the last one.

We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

Really, this:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Hillary Clinton speaking untruths??? Say it ain’t so Professor!

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to SeniorD. | September 20, 2019 at 4:34 pm


    That’s what Psychopaths do……

    They can’t tell the truth to save their lives…..

    Cause they literally believe inside that they are gods…..

I’m in Wisconsin! We have to show id to vote. The numbers she is using probably are the numbers of people who weren’t bussed from Illinois to illegally vote. The numbers she is using are probably accurate for the cheating that wasn’t allowed.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to kent. | September 20, 2019 at 4:38 pm

    Those and all the other illegal voters in all the other Democrat debt-ridden holes.

    Look at this, just in LA county alone more than 1 Million illegal registered have already been discovered (maybe it even goes to 1.5 Million wrongful voters on that county’s rolls alone).

    Tom Fitton: CA Cleaning its Dirty Voters Rolls a ‘BIG, Positive Step’ for Election Integrity

      Look at this, just in LA county alone more than 1 Million illegal registered have already been discovered

      Bullsh*t. Nothing in your linked source supports such an extraordinary claim.

        The link does say 1.5 million names on the rolls that should not be there. Judicial Watch successfully sued LA County and is forcing them to remove the names. Those 1.5 million names allow other people to vote using those names.

        What is not said, that the 1.5 million are illegal aliens, but perhaps the commenter meant they are illegally on the rolls, which would be correct.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Barry. | September 21, 2019 at 4:00 pm

          Yes, illegal voters and illegal voters are not one and the same, although the can be.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Barry. | September 21, 2019 at 4:00 pm

          “not illegal aliens that is”

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | September 21, 2019 at 11:55 pm

          No, they were not illegally on the rolls, and they were certainly not illegal voters. “notamember” is still misrepresenting his source. The source says 1M inactive voters were removed. Inactive voters are not in any way illegal, they are still entitled to vote, and indeed it is illegal to remove someone from the rolls merely for being inactive. But it is legal to remove them if, after being flagged as inactive, attempts to reach them fail, and that’s what’s happened in CA.

          This is a good thing, because having inactive names on the rolls not only clutters them but it presents an opportunity for fraud. But we know for a fact that these 1M names were not being used for fraud, so while removing them may prevent future fraud the failure to have removed them earlier did not cause any. It is therefore completely wrong to link this story to any kind of claim about illegal voting.

Can we not say the word “pants” and the word “Hillary Clinton” in the same sentence? Please!?!?!?
In fact, can we have a moratorium on photos of Hillary Clinton???

The Billery Show was in Vegas in May this year while I was there on my annual religious retreat. It was advertised on every billboard, radio and tv commercial. Tickets were going for $12 the day before and $6 at the door the day of. Still empty. Nobody cares about her pity tour then or now.

It’s bizarre. This woman is/was a world-class political operative. Now she, or her double, won’t shut up and it’s become a silly sideshow.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to artichoke. | September 20, 2019 at 10:22 pm

    She’s screaming “I’m still relevant I tell you!”

    Variation on “I’m ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!”

I’ve said this a bunch of times, but no one seems to pay attention. I followed the election all night on the New York Times tracking website. It was obvious by 9:00 o’clock that Trump would win.

The website had the best tracking software I have ever seen. It made projections at the lowest possible level, based on historical data.

The bottom line is, that any deviation from historical trends would have jumped out of the data. Any particular precinct participating in fraud or hankie-pankie would have stood out. It was all there in little red and blue markers.

I think it was one of the reasons that certain Michigan precincts has so much trouble. They were motivated to pad the vote, but if they had, it would have been highly visible.

When the recounts came along, those precincts had so many more votes than voters, they could not be recounted.

“Voter Supression” for Hillary Clinton means voters who are aware of all her faults, alleged crimes, and corruption. As in: “Voter Supression” is why I did not vote for Hillary Clinton.

In this case, shouldn’t it be “Pant-suit on Fire”???

Bullet dodged. Thank you President Donald J. Trump.

The current crop of Dems should step aside and let Hillary have one last shot.

Shouldn’t it be “Pants-Suit on fire”?

That this piece of garbage is not in prison is the turning point in the American justice system. Every day she is free aggravates the damage.

Don’t give credit to politifact…this is just one of those blatantly obvious moves they can make to try and remain credible in their “pants on fire” claims of neutrality.

In typical lib fashion blame everyone else for your failure

Her last shot will be bourbon

Well, to quote a once-relevant (albeit corrupt) politician: “What difference at this point does it make?”
Anyway, Queen Shrillary will never stop believing that she is entitled to her own facts. The best thing to do is simply to ignore her.