"The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges." - Hallo friendsINFO TODAY, In the article you read this time with the title "The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges.", We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article economy, Article health, Article hobby, Article News, Article politics, Article sports, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : "The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges."
link : "The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges."

"The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges."

Hmm. That's a strange approach to fact-checking at The Washington Post. Isn't the President in a position to know whether Obama's Iran deal included a grant of U.S. citizenship to 2,500 Iranian officials? Why would WaPo need more evidence to stop it from going all 4 Pinocchios?

Trump’s claim appears to have originated with Mojtaba Zonnour [an Iranian cleric who opposes the deal].... Trump said the Obama administration granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the JCPOA negotiations, including government officials, but Zonnour’s claim is somewhat different....

The White House did not respond to our request for comment. The Homeland Security and State departments didn’t answer our questions.

We asked Ben Rhodes, who was a key figure in the Iran deal negotiations and deputy national security adviser to Obama, whether it was accurate to claim that 2,500 Iranians were given U.S. citizenship or green cards during the JCPOA negotiations.

“I have never heard that figure before,” Rhodes said. “It is certainly the case that it was not part of the Iran deal.”

Rhodes's statement sounds cagey! He just hasn't heard "that figure." Has he heard some other figure or heard about it but without a specific figure? And "It is certainly the case that it was not part of the Iran deal" could just mean that it was a side deal not intended to be seen by the public. And then, too, Rhodes could be lying. Why no Pinocchios for him? Why not 4 Pinocchios, subject to revision if any corroborating evidence emerges? There is this additional support rustled up for Rhodes (and attempts at getting support for Trump were not responded to):

“This is not something that would have been negotiated without it being super public at the time,” [a senior Obama administration officials who had authority over immigration matters said to Fact Checker]. “There’s no question that Iranians were coming to the U.S. as refugees, and they have been for a long time. There are high levels of political and religious persecution in Iran. We may have brought in some refugees that were government officials of some level. But somebody who was a government official would be subject to a very high level of scrutiny and in most cases would be barred from entering because of the connection to the regime....

“I have never heard any reference to this claim previously,” [said said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution]. “Frankly, if there is a single speck of truth to this, I’d be shocked.”...

The top-ranked comment at WaPo: "If trump says it, you know immediately that it is false. Very false. Bigly false. Yet, I would rather have 2500 Iranians in America than 1 trump."

Thus Article "The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges."

That's an article "The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges." This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article "The president’s tweet merits Four Pinocchios, although we may revise this ruling if any corroborating evidence emerges." with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-presidents-tweet-merits-four.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: