How long do you think the lists of charges are that will probably be brought against Trump the moment he is no longer protected by his office?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
87 Answers
I’m skeptical any charges will be brought at all. Be fun to watch though.
You are making a huge assumption that he will leave the presidency if he loses the vote next year.
I have fears that he will declare the election invalid and decide to remain in office.
I think the list will be precisely zero items long, at least at the federal level. Prosecuting Trump after his term of office expires—whether it be in 2021 or 2025—would come across as purely political, and we don’t prosecute people for purely political reasons. Sure, that’s a political norm rather than a legal requirement. But everyone other than Trump still generally cares about norms (even if his political career has eroded many of the bigger ones).
I think we may see a number of proxy charges against Trump assets, however, particularly in places like New York where it would be easier to pursue them without taking it to the national level.
Before he leaves office, before the election, the list will be gargantuan. What interests me most is his upcoming attempt at re-election. The blistering mountain of ammunition the fool has provided whichever opponent faces him outstrips anything you can find in recorded civilization. I know for a fact that he will be the first politician in my lifetime for which any invented slander or slur would be comically superfluous. What could you invent that would be more slanderous than the truth?
So can anyone prove he is guilty of a crime?
We shall certainly find out!
@stanley Dont hold your breath.
(cough, cough Mueller)
Mueller is just the beginning.
Mueller is a non sequitur. His job was not to prove that the president did or did not commit any crimes. It was to investigate to what extent there were links and/or coordination between the Russian government the Trump campaign (along with any other matters uncovered during that investigation). And while he was empowered to seek indictments, that power did not extend to the President of the United States (due to a Department of Justice policy arising from an Office of Legal Counsel memo). It is up to Congress to indict, try, and convict a sitting president. And in any case, there is quite a bit of distance between indicting someone and proving them guilty.
I’m going to guess that I’m one of the few people here who has read all 448 pages of the Mueller report. There’s more than enough there to support an indictment, but it’s not politically feasible at this time to impeach the president in the House and bring him to trial in the Senate. And even if the Senate were not being led by the Republicans, there may not be enough evidence in the report itself to secure a conviction. The impeachment proceedings would probably need to turn up a bit more to get that outcome.
I also agree with Mueller, however, that Russia’s election tampering—which fully half of the report is about—is a far more pressing issue. In times past, an attack like this would have been something that everyone could rally around. It’s rather disturbing to see this issue taking a backseat in the public consciousness, especially with Mitch McConnell and Cindy Hyde-Smith actively blocking efforts to fix the problem.
I have to agree with @stanleybmanly, Mueller is just the beginning. It has overturned a whole lot of rocks where slime was hiding and is now being exposed. Where I think we disagree is that none of that slime rests on Trump.
Rests on Trump? Trump IS slime in the flesh! I’m listening at this very moment to a report of our President LYING needlessly about the path of hurricane Dorian. He has apparently personally altered a weather map to conform to a previous lie he invented on the storm’s track. I mean WTF? Everything he touches, anything near him winds up contaminated. Even the fucking wind isn’t immune from his taint. I tell you it’s unbelievable. This fool cannot tolerate the idea that there might be another blowhard somewhere stealing attention from himself!
And that diatribe has what, exactly, to do with the slime exposed by the Mueller investigation?
The diatribe is on those rocks you brought up that are actually immersed in the slime you claim unaffiliated with the fool. The ones coincidentally indicted in his stead. HIS lawyer, HIS campaign advisor, half HIS cabinet, HIS top security advisors——you know the list! Nothing to do with Trump?
And look at each of those indictments…they are all for the actions of those individuals…not associated with Russian collusion except for “lies” they told to the FBI, mainly about conversations with foreigners. Funny how they were held accountable for that when others have blatantly lied to the FBI and nothing happens to them. So none of those indictments had anything to do with Trump…they were brought in an effort to put pressure on them to create something that could be used against Trump. How’d that work for you? Nada. Meanwhile, what DID come out of the Mueller investigation is that it opened a lot of doors and windows that showed how corrupt and biased our intelligence community had become. The IG’s report that came out already showed Comey had a gross disregard for FBI rules and regulations and that he actively sought to smear Trump. Sort of fits the description of slime, doesn’t it? I can’t wait for the future IG reports on all this.
So let me ask…when the indictments start pouring out against those that sought to screw Trump over, are you going to sing a different tune…the one that says they were wrong and Trump was right all along?
What should happen is to place restrictions on executive privilege. The presidency has become too powerful. I don’t want to see an endless debate over whether Trump abused the privileges. I have no wish to act vengefully. Seeing Trump out of office would be sufficiently satisfying.
@LostInParadise I am in agreement with you. But honestly, let’s not restrict it only to the presidency. We, in this country, have developed two sets of laws and standards…on for the ruling class and one for everyone else. Congress does not have to abide by insider trading laws and as a result they frequently get rich off timely investments and decisions that impact their investments. We need to afford our elected leaders some leeway when it comes to taking actions, but when something is a crime for you and I, it ought to also apply all the way up the line.
The implications are beyond disturbing. The President of the United States doctoring a weather map to lie about an impending disaster—you’re right. You couldn’t make it up. But never mind that. Where’s your outrage about Biden?
@jca2 and @stanleybmanly I’m sorry, but the map is just grasping at straws to mock him.
Just losing more credibility for the Dems, please continue.
It is illegal to doctor an official government document. There’s no grasping at straws here.
@wiscoblond Shouldn’t be too difficult to provide a source that proves Trump doctored the map then.
Still not seeing one single piece of supporting evidence that is not conjecture or an opinion piece.
@Dutchess_III Article #1— “appears” -unconfirmed, not fact.
Article #2 “appears”- again unconfirmed, not fact.
Article #3 “apparently doctored”, unconfirmed, not fact.
Face it, you all believe anything.
Snopes.
Face it. The man is a complete idiot.
Grasping at straws? We’re being pummeled by logs! The man is a lunatic incapable of distinguishing truth from fantasy, and you are welcome to join wulfie if you choose in denying what sits in front of your nose.
@Dutchess_III From your Snopes citation:
“Our original chart was that it was going to be hitting Florida directly … It was going to be hitting directly and that would have affected a lot of other states. But that was the original chart. And as you see it was going to hit not only Florida but Georgia and sort of was going toward the Gulf, that was what we — what was originally projected, and it took a right turn.”
Those were Trump’s words. So all this hoo-haw about him trying to create stuff is just liberal schlock. It rates right up there with saying that calling Baltimore rat and rodent infested is racist. You are so easily duped. And face it…Snopes is not a reliable source anyway. They are just as guilty of making a mountain out of nothing as the rest of you…maybe more guilty. Look at this case…they are saying there was a black mark on the picture Trump referred to so that proves he was trying to show the course of the storm was going to hit Alabama. Pretty sad.
There’s a freaking sharpie circle on the document! smh
Nothing surprises me anymore. Half the country is nuts.
@seawulf575 Sweet baby Jesus. I guess holding a piece of paper means you cut down the tree.
Snopes said he ‘displayed’ it…..well duh.
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
HE DREW ON THE ORIGINAL MAP WITH A SHARPIE!!!! I swear, trump is killing his follower’s braincells.
This is another incident when taken by itself might be considered bizarre but trivial. But it is the daily and methodical relentless accumulation of the bizarre which should alert even the most skeptical of us that these are no mere quirks of character. These are seriously aberrant deviations from anyone’s concept of “the norm”. To deny the truth of this is implicitly to join in the fool’s delusions. I can guarantee ALL of you that in your future, you will be asked to account for your tolerance and acceptance of THIS idiot as YOUR President.
@Dutchess_III Where did you get the story that he drew on the map? In fact, when you look at the video, it is difficult to even see the black line. And he never touched it with a Sharpie. Again…you are blathering without any proof at all. I swear, liberals are killing their own braincells.
@stanleybmanly again…you start with your own opinions as fact, without ever producing a citation to back you up, and then you condemn everyone that doesn’t follow you down the rabbit hole. It amazes me. Just as I told @Dutchess_III, he didn’t draw on that map…at least not in the video. The map was on the floor behind him and he had to ask for it. Someone handed it to him and he held it up in his right hand. His left hand stayed on or near the desk. The line is barely noticeable and may not even be there. It can be seen on a photo, but gee…photos have been doctored before. Yet you guys on the left have created this entire narrative and tried to make a big deal out of it because you feed on each other. You ignore what he says and try creating some wild fantasy that Trump is out to lunch and tried faking a map to show that the hurricane was going to hit Alabama. This is where all the “Trump Rhetoric” starts…with idiots like you.
@seawulf575: He defended that map for days, even after the National Weather Service debunked it.
To which opinions do you refer? The daily accumulation of needless lies? The opinion that the fool who is crawling with severe character flaws? How about the one that he’s an idiot? Now the map. Someone altered it. Three years into a record of interminable lying, the fool should not be suspect THIS time?
@jca2 let’s look at your statement. He made his comment yesterday. And now, you are even saying he made the comments for days when it was yesterday. He said at the time that it was the original projection and that we got lucky, that Florida was missed. So what you have is a lot of idiotic liberals screaming about Trump saying Alabama was going to be hit and the NWS having to respond to it. Maybe if you guys on the left weren’t so loony, people wouldn’t have to explain reality to you in official memos.
@Dutchess_III Ahhh…a close up. So where did Trump draw on it? After all, that was your claim.
@jca2 and look at your NYT citation. First off, I’m glad you give citations. It shows you at least care enough to question things and look for a back up. Maybe you could teach @stanleybmanly ? Maybe not. But look at the article you gave. It just shows a picture and says there was a sharpie marker on it. The rest is liberal media schlock. When he referred to that map, he made it very clear that was their original prediction and that things had changed. Yet where does the NYT article actually address that? Where do all you uber-lefty jellies actually address that? Trump is absolutely correct. That was the initial projection. You can’t argue that….it was what the NWS projected about a week ago. And that was what Trump said…it was the original projection. Again…maybe you loonies on the left need to take a chill pill and stop trying to create controversy. It really doesn’t help your arguments about Trump.
I can’t believe what I’m reading.
Didn’t I say nothing surprises me anymore? I was wrong.
— I can’t with the stupid. It’s too much.—
trump’s insanely hilarious. He’s not only a dangerous and deplorable clown who happens to be in the WH but Fox would make billions producing a variety of trump shows after he stops playing president.
Forget prosecuting the clown. He deserves his own statue at the Mall. 3 ft. tall with him sitting on the toilet munching a Sharpie. And tweeting.
“If I was Alabama I’d apply for disaster relief.”- Anonymous
You guys crack me up. You can’t acknowledge reality, you give citations and don’t read them, you go crazy over a pen mark on a map, you are astounded that someone might not agree with your delusions, and it’s all because you hate Trump. Remember the statements about the Dems during the first debates? “All they have to do is seem less crazy than Trump and they will win”. You guys are living proof the left can’t be less crazy than Trump.
I’m tired of the dodging and weaving distinguishing you simpletons defending our idiot fool. So here’s the bottom line. Either honor and integrity matter or they don’t. Politics may be a profession rooted in “flexible” ethics, but each of us must determine the limits to such flexibility we are willing to accept. And so the arrival of this pathetically ignorant and horrendously flawed man, possibly deserving of pity, but more dangerous than understood. Because the true threat of Trump is not about his lack of honor or personal integrity. It is the fact that he is the walking breathing test of our limits to that ethical “flexibility” underlying our politics. In other words, the fool is the challenge to the individual ethics of each and every one of us, and whether you believe it or not, that shit matters—it distinguishes us for who and what we are. It goes without saying that we all have our flaws, but there must be a line. That line may vary for us all. For you backing our idiot President, I ask you to focus on that line and ask yourself to assess whether or not you find yourself passing the test on your own integrity.
@stanleybmanly funny that you had no qualms about a POTUS that lied as well as violated the Constitution at will. Guess that didn’t rise to the level of your individual ethics, huh?
@seawulf Sigh. Moral and ethical lines are only allowed to be crossed by Dems. Get it now?
I know…what was I thinking. It comes back to that idea that they (the left) hold conservatives to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves to.
The list of lies from Trump’s mouth is too long to write. There are not enough hours in the day. Proven lies.
@seawulf575. The pretense that previous Presidents suffer the culpabilities attributable to this fool is both dishonest and scandalously salacious. To even make such an assertion betrays a regard for the truth on par with that of the fool himself. It is not only a lie, but a direct illustration of what I am talking about. This pretense that Trump should be acceptable because “other guys have done it” is an affront to both history and the truth.
You 2 continually make the mistake that the discussion around Trump is about liberals vs. conservatives. Thus wulfie’s annoying habit of announcing Obama’s alleged crimes as compensating for Trump’s behavior. It’s another clear example of his usual deflection from the issue of Trump. He switches the topic, then accuses me of that very trick. It is of course as dishonest a tactic as the comparison itself. He is taking the issue of character and converting it to one of ideology. And once again it is STUPID. Let me put it this way. Once you find yourself in the position of defending an inveterate and ignorant liar—a man hopelessly devoid of honor and integrity as a model for conservatism, you eliminate any plausible defense for the ideology itself. Trump isn’t the enemy of liberalism. He is the scourge of conservatism itself. The absurdity of his fronting the right, has meant the abandonment of the intellectual contingent of the conservative movement, leaving the right to wallow at the mercy of the “great unwashed”. He has effectively destroyed conservatism as a rational movement in this country without the bulk of so called conservatives even being aware of it.
@jca2 Yep, there are some lies. But there are also many that the left created. Remember all the “lies” he told about not colluding with Russia? What about him denying that he said Neo-Nazis were “very fine people”. Your heads on the left blew up and you screamed about how he was lying. In fact, he did say the words “very fine people” in reference to the lawful protesters. He denounced the skin heads and neo-Nazis repeatedly in that same discussion. But you on the left create a lie and then say he is lying when he denies it. What about when he claimed his campaign was being spied on? You all shook your heads and said he was lying again. But now it seems he was 100% accurate. His campaign was being spied on by the intelligence community under the Obama administration. Look at this thing with the hurricane prediction. You all scream about his lies, but you are the ones that are making stuff up. The OP claims he drew on it. That is not shown or proven anywhere and seems patently silly. You all rave that he continues to claim that it was going to hit Alabama. What he said is that the original prediction call for that and now it has changed course. That is 100% true which means all the hoo-haw from you guys is just more lies ABOUT Trump, not from him. I think that while you are saying the list of lies is too long to write, that maybe you OUGHT to list them so that each and every one of them can be tracked back to the reality. I suspect you would find many of Trump’s “lies” could be tracked back to things created by the left. You might also find things he was accused of lying about that eventually proved true. I think you would find the actual list of things he lied about or was way off base was much shorter than you believe. But I really don’t expect you to do this…it is easier to live in a fantasy when you don’t actually have to look at facts. He has indeed said stupid things that make no sense. He has indeed said things that were found to be untrue. But if you care be honest for even a few moments, you will find he really hasn’t been any worse than any other politician, or really any other human.
@stanleybmanly I’m sorry…wasn’t it you that brought up political ethics and the standards we are all willing to accept? That is awfully broad. So you opened that door. I find it disingenuous of you to suddenly claim I am changing the conversation or dodging when I walk through that door. But then, that is you all over. You are the biggest hypocrite on these pages. I remember you argued with me that Obama ever violated the Constitution. After much effort, I finally got you to admit he had. And even then you tried making excuses for him. So my statement of your own standards be two-faced holds 100%.
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
@jca2 First off, you should know better than to pull Politifact out to me as a source. They are so biased it makes it easy to show how they dodge. To show you what I am saying, I will take apart many of your list, if you like. Let’s start with this one
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/aug/02/donald-trump/trumps-false-charge-democrats-want-virtual-immunit/
Trump makes a speech and says that Dems are soft on immigration and forget the people they are supposed to represent. He points to the sanctuary poliicies many Dem led cities support. He then gives examples of illegals that were arrested in sanctuary cities, not turned over to ICE for deportation and then they go on to commit more violent crime against real American citizens. Politifact then lists immigration legislation proposed by Dems (which won’t work because of limitations built in to the legislation) and campaign speeches as a basis for saying Trump was lying. They entirely ignore the actual statement from Trump. He specifically pointed at sanctuary policies and the impact it has on American citizens in a negative way. Politifact came nowhere near addressing that, yet said he was lying. That is the Left trying to avoid reality and creating a whole new narrative to say Trump was lying.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jul/23/donald-trump/no-ocasio-cortez-didnt-call-Americans-garbage/
This one is entertaining because it goes back to interpretation of what someone said. And even in the Politifact article, it shows the various interpretations. So Politifact selected the side that made Trump wrong and called it a lie. So somehow their interpretation is more valid? Another case of the Left calling something a lie that really isn’t.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jul/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-twists-ilhan-omar-comments/
This one shows Politifact in full bloom. Trump made a statement about Ilhan Omar and her stance on al-Qaida. He commented on her soft stance against them. Politifact then went on trying to soft shoe the realities. They even stated in their article that she soft pedaled around wanting to condemn al-Qaida and made soft comments…almost excuses…for their behaviors. But then they turn around and say Trump lied for doing the exact same thing…pointing to her inability to condemn a known Islamic terrorist group…and they say Trump lied. Well, if he lied, so did they. Again…the left tries to make something into a lie that they really can’t defend.
The list goes on and on. As I said…when you take a list of “Trump’s lies” and start tracking back, you find liberal bias in many, many cases.
Response moderated
Interesting the the right always wants to dismiss credible fact checking sites as biased. If they don’t do that they’d have to accept the fact that much of what they believe in is bullshit.
Response moderated
@Dutchess_III Yeah…it’s a flaw. We look through the hype and see the facts. Too bad the left hasn’t figured that one out. But then if you did, what would we argue about?
@Aster you are wrong.
“Until this week, few Americans knew that a provision in the U.S. Code titled “False weather reports” makes it a crime to falsely claim the authority of government weather science: “Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/06/why-president-trumps-sharpied-weather-map-was-likely-crime-should-be/
THAT was an opinion @seawulf575. The opinion of a Republican. And, as I said above, they’re all going to scream that they’re biased because so often the truly absurd shit the Republicans do turns out to be TRUE.
@Dutchess_III Interesting that you take a US News and World Report article and try to say it’s biased for Republicans. They are generally very centrist and actually slightly left leaning. But I also find it amusing that you want to right it off as an opinion. Because if you read the article, that is what was determined about POLITIFACT…that they are basically opinion. They are extremely biased left and often do exactly what I identified…avoid addressing the actual issue or try to nit-pick an answer. So in other words, you consider POLITIFACT credible because they are just as skewed as you are.
I know you have some reading comprehension issues @seawulf575, so let me slow it down. Here is the link you posted: “https://www.usnews.com/ OPINION/blogs/peter-roff/ 2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans.”
Here is the study that he claims “shows bias.” As you can see, it is simply presenting the facts as they are, and the facts show Republicans lie a LOT more than dems. In Roff’s opinion this is bias, when, in fact, it’s just the facts, ma’am.
Here is a mess of his other opinions.
I don’t have comprehension issues and everything I have read about him screams radically right wing.
@Dutchess_III I am not amazed that you cannot see the bias in that study, nor believe any of his opinions are valid. So maybe you want to take this one on?
https://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire
It is an interview on NPR and one of the guests is Glenn Kessler who is the fact checker at the Washington Post. Even he says Politifact gets into trying to sway the conversations to the left. Want to tell me how HE is bogus? C’mon…get real.
This article:
https://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/
does an interesting thing. It did a study of many of Politifact’s rulings and broke them down into a lot of different categories including number or words used to arrive at their rating. It found that what was happening was that Politifact would want to rate something as mostly false, mostly true or pants on fire and their rating would be much longer normal. An evaluation of those articles found that they spent sometimes thousands of words to try twisting the story to match their desired conclusion. It even addresses your preferred conclusion that Republicans lie more than Democrats. Coincidentally, Mr. Kessler from the previous citation also addressed this and in his experience, Dems and Repubs lie about the same. So when Politifact rates Repubs as lying 3x more often, that is, in itself, a lie. Of course I know you will just negate The Federalist because you don’t like them and really can’t debate the content of their article so I recognize this as a wasted citation on you.
Do you have a link to a fact checking site that gives what you think is a more accurate assessment than Politifact? Do you think that someone from a rival fact checking site might be a little biased in his evaluation of Politifact?
@LostInParadise I don’t think any fact checking sites are immune from a bias. What you have to do when looking at a fact-check is look for, well, facts. When they start rambling, trying to justify, you are most times entering the realm of opinion. If your fact check doesn’t address the actual issue, you are entering the realm of opinion. In many cases, the fact checker takes one small piece of what is said, avoids the actual meaning of the original statement, tries to get into minutia and opinion to make their determination, it isn’t fact checking…it’s biased rhetoric. Part of the problem, I think, is that there is partial truth in most sites. Some fact checking sites are better than others, but all have some bias. But, for instance, if someone is fact-checking a meme to see if it is real, the conclusions are pretty simple….yes the person said it and where it was said and what the quote was or no, the person never said it. Those are easy. So that becomes fodder to call the site honest and unbiased when, in fact, it may not be. And people tend to believe opinions they like and when they see it in print from a “fact checker” they then take it as gospel.
Look at some of the instances I cited earlier from Politifact. In one of the cases, someone voiced an opinion. Someone else disagreed with that opinion. There aren’t facts there other than did the person actually say it. But Politifact went in, tried justifying the opinion they liked and then called the other person a liar. Does that sound like fact-checking to you?
Do you even read your own stuff @seawulf575? Everything you provide as “proof” actually supports the opposite.
Yeah @Dutchess_III I understand your reading comprehension might believe that. Funny that you don’t actually highlight anything that might back up that claim. Typical.
All that you have posted are opinions. There is nothing to back up their claims. Nothing. They don’t tell you exactly what they did so you can recreate it and see if you get the same results.
They just say, “Fact checking sites are biased.”
And you say, “That’s proof right there!!”
A scientist you ain’t.
And every last one of them is always biased against Republicans. Don’t you find that a bit curious?
@Dutchess_III Isn’t it funny that you are okay with fact checkers that are nothing but opinion but don’t want to see the same that opposes you? If you look at the sites I gave as reference, there actually is evaluation there. I’m sure it is over your head since it does deal with logic, so that might be why you are so afraid of it. And even the WaPo checker says Politifact is biased and that they use exactly the same antics I have described. And the WaPo checker did an evaluation of his own and found that Repubs and Dems lie about the same amount. Repubs don’t lie more nor vice versa. So are you trying to say the Washington Post is biased in favor of Republicans?
Why is it that fact checking sites all seem to be on the left? Does this imply an indifference to truth on the part of the right?
@seawulf575 Opinions have no proof included with them. Snopes is my fact checker of preference, and it contains researchable proof listed with each article.
Here is an example about trump saying “Republicans are the dumbest group of voters.”
@LostInParadise The fact that the truth seems to be “left leaning”, according to republicans, is a real problem, IMO.
@LostInParadise There are some that are right leaning. And it should be noted that most “news” outlets have their own fact checkers. But again…if they aren’t sticking to the facts or if they aren’t sticking to the topic, they are pushing opinion. It really doesn’t matter on what side of the aisle they reside.
It would be instructive to compare the specific statement examples for two fact checking sites.
Exactly @LostInParadise. But we’ll never get those kinds of specifics from a right winger. Never. They operate off of whimsy and paranoia.
@LostInParadise That would be an interesting exercise. The problem comes with trying to find a specific statement that two fact checking sites have evaluated. I suspect that is part of the problem since so many of them try to pick one small specific statement to rate.
A fact checking site has presumably looked at all the public statements of a person. It should not be difficult to compare the results.
The problem is that, as I have been saying, most, if not all, of the “fact checking” sites are biased. So what a liberal site sees as worthy of fact checking, a conservative site might not. And let’s be honest…there are a lot of important people saying a lot of things…too many for any site to reliably fact check everything. So trying to find two sites with opposing views that have fact checked the same thing might be down right impossible.
I still think a comparison is worthwhile. What should be factual is that certain statements were made. It one site catches statements that contradict facts and a second site does not, there is reason to doubt the reliability of the second site. If the context of the statements needs to be considered then the second site should bring that up.
I’d love to present a challenge to several fact checking sites to see how they spin things. Because after all…that’s what most of them do.
Thing is, we don’t even need fact checking sites. We can see what he’s doing for ourselves.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
