![]() |
![]() |
And it has only gotten worse since that comparison was made.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Now we know why CNN and the other trusted sources failed to follow up on the lies Rice and Clinton told about Benghazi.
But speaking of "proven" lies, who remembers this whopper
"Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands. That no-concessions policy remains in force, despite the wildly speculative and false stories about arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we..."
That link just walks you through the problems with proving she lied. You believe she lied, but in the end (1) you have no witnesses outside Hillary and the family members and they give conflicting accounts in some cases, (2) under the fog of war and contemporaneous events in nearby Cairo, many smart people believed at the time that this was another video inspired protest that went awry, (3) we still cannot disprove that the video played at least some role in the recruitment of terrorists to storm the embassy and compound (one of the terrorists we captured said it did). I assume Faux News and its ilk don't talk about these facts when they profess that HRC lied.
But those sources, unlike CNN, have relatively low journalistic standards. Yeah, conspiracy theories and pretty ladies that are womanized can draw viewers, but that is not what CNN wants to do. And it does hurt their ratings.