On Thursday, Donald Trump held a formal press conference and took questions from the gathered journalists, facing challenging questions and confronting issues. Imagine this: a candidate making themself available to the media and addressing policy. How novel and unexpected. (Kamala Harris has now gone 20 days since she became the announced Democrat candidate without doing so.)

In practiced fashion, the New York Times decided it would provide a team of fact-checkers to tear into Trump’s many claims. What is notable about this exercise is how we have never seen such an application of diligent journalism with the other party. Take, for instance, the public coming out party for Tim Walz this week and his spewing of numerous inaccuracies; we did not see a gathering of analysts dispatched for that event.

But as expected as these admonishments have become, there is one other aspect we can count on – the fact-checkers contorting and corrupting the facts. As the Times displayed, the “facts” are malleable when it comes to Donald Trump. Accuracy becomes secondary to slandering the man as a liar. Here are the shameful results.

Still with this?!?! pic.twitter.com/6QOQYQQ9h7

— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) August 9, 2024

Yes, they are still doing this. The current narrative is she was not in charge of border control but rather tasked to be a diplomat with the triad of Central American countries feeding the immigration crisis. The problem with this is since her appointment, there have been four times as many arrivals, so this has been an utter failure regardless.

But the comedy in this “She was not Border Czar” desperation in the Times is that when she was tasked with the assignment, this very paper stipulated that she was taking on those duties as the current Czar was stepping away.

So he was accurate, but this needed context...? pic.twitter.com/DxHyVB19Uq

— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) August 9, 2024

Always a favorite tactic to see with fact-checkers: The comment they analyze is declared accurate, yet outside items are imported in order to muddy the waters and change the outcome. Best of all with this one is that a correction had to be made to the initial declarative post that is designed to be the final say on a matter.

“A correction was made on Aug. 8, 2024: An earlier version of this article misstated Vice President Kamala Harris’s account in her autobiography of retaking the bar exam after failing on her first attempt.

(Note that when Trump gets facts wrong, it is “false,” and he “lies,” but when it is the fact-checkers who get facts wrong, it is merely something “misstated.”)

Conveniently leaves out Kamala saying "mandatory buyback". pic.twitter.com/2UQeU2bxU9

— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) August 9, 2024

I’m sorry, did Trump actually say “all guns”?! No, he said “your guns,” and assault weapons — as manufactured of a term as that is — are guns. Additionally, Ms. Qiu manages to avoid the detail that Harris has said that it would be a “mandatory buyback program” — a telling omission. 

And note as well the casual way that Harris claiming to have made a complete 180 on the subject is not addressed critically. It used to be a politician making such a blatant eel-like shift of convenience during an election was a point of severe criticism; with Harris, it is regarded as a savvy strategy displaying growth as a candidate.

They want to haggle over "barrel" or "gallon", and the dollar figures. pic.twitter.com/vDT2KVhZeu

— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) August 9, 2024

Here, we get trademarked Trump hyperbole and confusion, but the underlying truth is in place. Whether he meant “barrels” or “gallons” is up for debate, and while his figures may be off, the fact remains — as this checker attests — gas prices were lower under Trump (despite the “doesn’t count because” attempt) and rose sharply under Biden. And the final sentence about drilling agrees with Trump’s statement.

Biden's plan was to faze out all gas-powered vehicle sales. This is sheer denial by @NYTimes. pic.twitter.com/Kxa5nduh3X

— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) August 9, 2024

This is a strained effort to thread a needle linguistically in order to “prove” Trump was incorrect. Okay, technically, you will not be forced to buy an electric vehicle in the same way that you are not forced to buy a gas-powered car today. But Biden has specifically stated he wants gas-powered vehicles phased out by 2035, so if you want to buy a new car, guess what???

And, of course, his position on the issue has evolved, so this provides cover in order to make the accusation that a lie has been uttered.

Tim Walz specifically has allowed for this. pic.twitter.com/jePr43cVYy

— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) August 9, 2024

When it comes to Tim Walz, this is a topic the press would be wise to steer clear of. Second point first: This deflection of “late-term abortions are extremely rare” never refutes the fact that Democrats support the procedure up to delivery. They have been on the record numerous times stating “no restrictions.” As for the first point about “ninth month and after birth,” allow me to introduce you to Governor Walz.

When he took office, he kicked open the doors of abortion clinics in his state, removing just about any restriction you can think of for the practice. As a result, the State Health Department of Minnesota reported numerous instances of babies that were actually alive outside the womb and permitted to expire. Along with that, there were over 150 cases of ninth-month abortions where viability was bypassed.

FIVE babies were born alive in abortions and left to die in Minnesota in 2021. That's according to the state health department.

FIVE - in one state! pic.twitter.com/43VhZnlCST

— micaiah bilger (@micaiah157) July 11, 2022

To recap with the obvious: These are journalists posturing as the final authority on the facts, and as they have shown, the truth is something interpretational based strictly on who and from what party the comments derive. The job of fact-checkers is not to clarify but to obfuscate and deliver the invective toward their target or the needed protection of their favored politicians.