The

Fox
Lie
Fox’s “news” side pushed misinformation
every day for four months straight.
Fox’s “news” side pushes
misinformation every single day
Fox News likes to tout the “hard news” side of its operation, setting up a false
distinction between its right-wing prime-time hosts and its news anchors. The
network pushes this fictional division as a defense against those who flag the
propaganda, lies, conspiracy theories, and bigotry pervading the network:

“As much as people want to try to pit news versus opinion, this place was
built on doing both. … News does its side, and opinion does its side.”
-- Jay Wallace, Fox News president and executive editor

“We serve different masters. We work for different reporting chains,

we have different rules. They don’t really have rules on the opinion side.
They can say whatever they want.”
-- Shepard Smith, Fox News anchor

“In that 11,000-plus words in the New Yorker piece, what wasn’t
mentioned is that Fox has a very professional and very solid news
division. … Opinion people are something else.”
-- Howard Kurtz, Fox News media analyst

But a Media Matters investigation found that the “news” side isn’t as inoculated as
the network claims. We looked at Fox News and Fox Business programming for the
first four months of 2019, and we found examples of the “news” division spreading
misinformation on air every single day between January 1 and April 30.

The most frequent strains of misinformation related to special counsel Robert

Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian
interference in the 2016 election, the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), immigration and border security
issues, and proposals for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Multiple reports have suggested that reporters in Fox’s news division are frustrated
with the lack of standards in the two networks’ opinion programming. But advertisers
and audiences shouldn’t be fooled: Fox’s opinion and “news” sides are two cogs in
the same propaganda machine.
January

Martha MacCallum
The Story on Fox News
 January 1
FALSE: Correspondent Molly Line suggested that in the past, Democrats supported a border wall similar to the
one President Donald Trump was proposing.

TIANA LOWE (WASHINGTON EXAMINER WRITER): I think that if Trump is actually able to get a deal, if he’s
able to bring back some sort of Gang of Eight-style legislation that, mind you, 68% -- or 68 senators voted
on in 2013 just five years ago. Democrats, including [Sen.] Chuck Schumer, promised that they would add
another $4.5 billion to border security and another 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. So if
Trump is also able to play politics and sort of shove that legislation back in their faces, promising immedi-
ate amnesty for [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] recipients, he could get something done. Because
otherwise it’s clear the Democrats aren’t going to budge.

MOLLY LINE (CORRESPONDENT): Yes, that’s the sort of information that Republicans have kind of made
their mantra, to say, hey Democrats, you’ve supported this in the past, and it seems to be the difference
now, of course, they argue, is that the president is there in the Oval Office. [Fox News, America’s News HQ,
1/1/19]

FACT: Fact-checkers have debunked comparisons between what Democrats supported and Trump’s demands.
A January 2019 PolitiFact article fact-checked an argument from Trump that Democrats “changed their mind” on a
border wall “only after I was elected president,” declaring it “mostly false.” According to the article, Trump’s state-
ment involved a “a mischaracterization of the barrier that won Democratic support 13 years ago.” PolitiFact added
that nearly all of the authorized fencing was completed by 2015 and explained: “Democrats have not changed their
stance on the border fencing they previously supported; they simply don’t support the more ambitious wall Trump
proposes.” [PolitiFact,1/9/19]

January 2
FALSE: Anchor Jon Scott claimed that U.S. Border Patrol agents fired tear gas on migrants at the border “when
some migrants began throwing rocks.”

JON SCOTT (ANCHOR): Well, a confrontation turned ugly as more than 100 migrants storm the border, try-
ing to cross from Mexico into San Diego. U.S. officers responding with tear gas when some migrants began
throwing rocks. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 1/2/19]

FACT: Both The Associated Press and Reuters photojournalists on the scene disputed this version of events,
and the AP photographer specifically said that migrants didn’t begin throwing rocks until after Border Patrol
tear gassed them. The AP wire report on the tear gassing explicitly stated, “Several migrants tried to climb the
metal wall, prompting agents to fire the first volley of tear gas. When migrants approached the wall again, author-
ities fired a second round and then a third.” An AP photojournalist on the scene “saw rocks thrown only after U.S.
agents fired the tear gas” and saw the “migrants put their hands up or behind their heads once they crossed the
border as agents approached.” Additionally, Reuters reported, “U.S. officials said the group had attacked agents
with projectiles but a Reuters witness did not see any migrants throwing rocks at U.S. agents.” [The Associated
Press, 1/2/19; Reuters, 1/2/19; Media Matters, 1/3/19]

January 3
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said that blaming Republicans for the government shutdown
“seems a little bit murkier” than in past shutdowns and that Democrats share more blame.

CHARLES LANE (CONTRIBUTOR): I think it’s part of a strategy the White House has finally gotten around to
of attempting to show the president is the one who wants to compromise and that the Democrats are the
ones who are being intransigent here. And of course that’s all part of the larger game here in Washington,
 which is not about any kind of policy substance, but the politics of the shutdown, which is a blame game.

And interestingly, I think both parties are a little uncertain right now about who will get blamed for this.
They don’t have a lot of good polling data to rely on. Public opinion about shutdown seems to be changing in
terms of who automatically gets blamed. It used to be more the Republicans. Not so much anymore. And so
part of the reason I don’t think the shutdown will end soon is I think they’re both still feeling their way about
how the public is reacting.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Mollie, Charles hit on something interesting, which is
there does usually, historically there has been this sort of this knee-jerk, the Republicans are to blame. And
in this case it seems a little bit murkier.

HENRY: And there is a new power dynamic, to get at what Charles was saying about who is going to get the
blame. It’s not Republicans running everything now. Democrats have some responsibility to govern. [Fox
News, Special Report, 1/3/19]

FACT: Trump repeatedly and publicly accepted responsibility for the shutdown, and Republicans failed to pass
multiple bills to reopen the government. Trump first accepted responsibility in a December 11 meeting with Dem-
ocratic congressional leaders days before the shutdown began, saying, “If we don’t get what we want, ... I will shut
down the government. He went on to say, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security. … I will take
the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down.” As the shutdown began on December 21, Trump wrote on Twitter that
“there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time” if he didn’t get funding for a border wall. When Demo-
crats took control of the House on January 3, they immediately passed legislation to reopen the government, but
the Republican-controlled Senate refused to vote on the bills. [CNBC, 12/11/18; Politico, 12/11/18; Vox, 12/21/18; The
Washington Post, 1/3/19]

January 4
FALSE: Correspondent Doug McKelway said there is a “far-left open-borders wing” of the House Democrats.

DOUG MCKELWAY (CORRESPONDENT): Boy, Sandra, it’s really hard to see where the exit ramp is here. It
appears that both sides are more entrenched than ever. That said, there was a sliver of hope yesterday
afternoon, after Nancy Pelosi was handed the gavel as the new speaker of the House of Representatives.
The thinking was that she might have more freedom to negotiate with the Republicans after having won
the speakership, because she would no longer have to seek the votes of the far-left open-borders wing of
her party. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 1/4/19]

FACT: No Democrats in the House of Representatives support open borders. House Democrats support an array
of changes to the immigration system, including more agents, better surveillance technology, and revamping or
completely eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, even abolishing ICE is not the same
thing as calling for “open borders” -- the completely free movement of immigrants across the border. Even Rep.
Mark Pocan (D-WI), who strongly favors abolishing ICE, has said, “I don’t support open borders, I don’t know any
Democrat who supports open borders.” [PolitiFact, 10/24/18, 1/24/19]

January 5
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wants to tax
the wealthy at a 70% rate.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): You had a Democrat -- we’re going to get to this -- saying
that the wealthy should be taxed at 70% -- 70%; we’re going to take all of your money, basically. [Fox News,
Fox & Friends Weekend, 1/5/19]
FACT: Ocasio-Cortez proposed a 70% marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million, which is not the same thing
as a 70% tax rate. As Ocasio-Cortez explained to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes, a marginal tax “doesn’t mean
all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate” but rather that some of top earners’ income would be taxed at a
higher rate after it passed a certain threshold. Her proposed top marginal tax rate of 70% would apply only to indi-
viduals who have more than $10 million in annual taxable income, and the 70% tax would apply only to the taxable
income those individuals made past the $10 million mark. [Media Matters, 1/14/19]

January 6
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo said taxes for the rich need to be low for strong job growth.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): In terms of the economy here, things are booming. You saw the numbers,
312,000, I saw your conversation with Charles earlier. And it’s true, wages are going up. You look at Hispanic
unemployment at 4.4%. I mean, the numbers are really compelling and it does remind us that the economy
in the United States is booming, and it has everything to do with the economic policies coming out of this
administration.

BARTIROMO: [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been] saying let’s pay more taxes and let’s tax the rich even
more. Make no mistake, OK, the top 10% of earners pay 80% of all taxes. Where do you want to go, to 90%,
100%? If you want to continue to see numbers like we did on Friday, 312,000 jobs created for the last month,
you have to keep a tax structure in place that makes sense. And you have to incentivize businesses to cre-
ate more jobs, and that’s what we’re seeing happening because of the tax cut plan enacted last year. [Fox
News, Fox & Friends, 1/6/19]

FACT: High tax rates on the rich have not hampered growth in the past. A February CNBC article explained that
the U.S. economy “has weathered much higher tax rates in the past 100 years with little apparent effect on the
ebb and flow of economic growth. ... The highest marginal rate topped 90 percent during World War II, falling to 70
percent from 1965 to 1981, a period including economic expansion and recession.” The article continued:

A high marginal tax rate “doesn’t seem to hurt economic growth and maybe even spurs it” by putting more
money in consumers’ pockets, according to Matthew Dimick, a professor at the University at Buffalo School
of Law who studies the relationship between law and inequality.

Proponents of lower taxes, though, point to America’s massive, innovative corporations as a success story.
In a post on Jan. 25, the American Enterprise Institute’s Jim Pethokoukis, a CNBC contributor, also ques-
tioned how a higher tax burden on the rich would affect business formation and risk taking.

“America must be doing something right since it has Apple, Google, and Amazon, and Europe doesn’t,” he
wrote.

Yet, high marginal tax rates in the 1960s didn’t inhibit development of such watershed technologies as the
microchip or satellite communications. [CNBC.com, 2/5/19]

January 7
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was “leading an effort to up the top rate
… all the way up to 70% for the super rich.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): What do you think of the tax cut? If we had not had the tax cut -- Democrats who
have just taken over the House have said that it was a waste, it was tilted to the rich, it didn’t do anything.

A number of Democrats are leading an effort to up the top rate, in the case of one New York City congress-
 woman, all the way up to 70% for the super rich. I guess that would include yourself. What do you think of all
that? [Fox News, Your World, 1/7/19]

FACT: Ocasio-Cortez proposed a 70% marginal tax rate for those who have more than $10 million in taxable
income, which is not the same thing as a tax of “70% for the super rich.” As Ocasio-Cortez explained to Anderson
Cooper on 60 Minutes, a marginal tax “doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate,” but rather
that some of top earners’ income would be taxed at a higher rate after it passed a certain threshold. The freshman
representative’s proposed top marginal tax of 70% would apply only to individuals who have more than $10 million
in annual taxable income and only to the taxable income those individuals made past the $10 million mark. [Media
Matters, 1/14/19]

January 8
FALSE: Correspondent William LaJeunesse said California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom “signed an execu-
tive order expanding free or subsidized health care for all illegal immigrants under age 26.”

WILLIAM LAJEUNESSE (FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT): Newsom is a liberal whose promises some say will
bankrupt a state with already the highest combined tax rate. He favors single-payer health care, univer-
sal preschool and savings accounts for every 5-year-old, a Marshall plan to create more public housing to
end homelessness, and a state bank to provide low-interest loans. Within hours of taking office, Newsom
signed an executive order allowing the state to buy prescription drugs for all 13 million poor Californians
and let private business join in a buying pool. He also reinstated the individual mandate that all Californians
carry health insurance. That’s a direct conflict, of course, with Washington, which removed the individual
mandate. And Newsom also signed an executive order expanding free or subsidized health care for all ille-
gal immigrants under age 26. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 1/8/19]

FACT: Newsom did not sign such an executive order but instead asked California’s legislature to pass a law
expanding coverage. As the Los Angeles Times explained, Newsom proposed “a dramatic Medi-Cal expansion that
would cover young immigrant adults who are in the U.S. illegally,” noting that “California would be the first state to
cover immigrants without legal status who are younger than 26 through Medi-Cal, the state’s health program for
people with low incomes. California already covers undocumented children until they turn 19, with Newsom’s plan
increasing the age cut-off to mirror that of the Affordable Care Act, which allows young adults to stay on a parent’s
health insurance plan until turning 26.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/7/19]

January 9
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed that Trump offered to make the wall a “steel barrier” because it was
the Democrats’ idea.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): Is all of this pressuring the president to come to the middle somehow and
somehow, you know, appease the Democrats in whatever way they want? He’s already said that he’s agreed
to make it a steel barrier because that was the Democrats’ idea, right? What else can he do, Sarah? [Fox
Business Network, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 1/9/19]

FACT: Democrats did not ask for a steel barrier. Spokespersons for Democratic leaders in the House and Senate
told PolitiFact that Democrats had not made such a request, and the fact-checking site was unable to find any
other evidence that there was ever a request for such a barrier. [PolitiFact, 1/9/19]
 January 10
FALSE: While discussing a proposal by New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio that employers offer their workers
paid vacation, anchor Harris Faulkner said, “It changes the productivity of people when you give them too
much.”

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): I would say this about the businesses, just real quickly, it changes the pro-
ductivity of people when you give them too much and you take away the incentive to stay on the job. [Fox
News, Outnumbered, 1/10/19]

FACT: Research shows that the opposite is true: Having breaks increases productivity. As an August 2017
Psychology Today article explained, “Sabine Sonnentag, professor of organizational psychology at the University
of Mannheim in Germany, finds that the inability to detach from work comes with symptoms of burnout, which of
course impact well-being and productivity. However, disengaging from work when you are not at work, she finds,
makes us more resilient in the face of stress and more productive and engaged at work.” An article in Harvard
Business Review noted that people who take more vacation time are more likely to receive raises or bonuses, sug-
gesting the breaks increase overall performance. [Psychology Today, 8/17/17; Harvard Business Review, 7/13/16]

January 11
FALSE: Co-anchor Bill Hemmer cited Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s false claim that a wall built in El Paso,
TX, caused crime to drop 90%, asking his guest, “How can you refute that?”

BILL HEMMER (CO-ANCHOR): Here’s a question. Ken Paxton’s the attorney general down there in Texas.
He was with us 30 minutes ago. He said in 2010 in El Paso, crime was rampant. They build a wall and crime
dropped 90%. How can you refute that? [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 1/11/19]

FACT: El Paso had already reached a historically low crime rate before Congress authorized a fence in 2006. As
an NBC News fact check of a similar claim Trump made during his State of the Union speech noted, “According to
law enforcement data, the city had low crime rates well before a border barrier was constructed between 2008 and
mid-2009.” The article continued: “Violent crime has been dropping in El Paso since its modern-day peak in 1993
and was at historic lows before a fence was authorized by Congress in 2006. Violent crime actually ticked up during
the border fence’s construction and after its completion, according to police data collected by the FBI.” [NBC
News, 2/11/19]

January 12
FALSE: Correspondent Griff Jenkins said Democrats previously favored a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

GRIFF JENKINS (FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT): And certainly a different time than when all politicians
supported securing our border and Democrats were for a wall. Now, they’re not. [Fox News, Fox & Friends
Weekend, 1/12/19]

FACT: Democrats never broadly supported building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2006, sightly more than
half of Democrats in the Senate supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006. As PolitiFact explained, “Schumer, along
with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006,
which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico.
That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border. However, the fence was mocked as a
‘nothing wall’ by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump
wants to build now. Finally, Trump says the Democrats no longer support their previous position simply because
he wants it. But Democrats have actually proposed current funding for the fencing that was approved in 2006.”
[PolitiFact, 1/9/19]
 January 13
FALSE: Correspondent Griff Jenkins claimed that polling support for the border wall was going up because
some Democrats visited Puerto Rico during the government shutdown while Trump stayed in the White House.

GRIFF JENKINS (CORRESPONDENT): The longer this goes on, the more this develops -- when Democrats
are in Puerto Rico, the president is in the White House, calling for a resolution, the poll numbers grow for
the support for the wall. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 1/13/19]

FACT: Polling data showed no significant changes in support for the border wall. According to a January 8
analysis by CNN’s Harry Enten, “Before the shutdown, [respondents] opposed it by about a 10- to 20-point margin.
There’s no sign that’s changed in the latest polling.” Another CNN poll in January found that respondents opposed
the border wall by a 17-point margin. [CNN, 1/8/19; 1/13/19]

January 14
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo equated border barriers built as a result of the 2006 Secure Fencing Act to
Trump’s border wall.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): I just don’t understand why both sides are digging in this way. I mean, what
is wrong with the border wall?

DAGEN MCDOWELL (ANCHOR): Well, again, wall is immoral. And even other Democrats don’t believe in
border security.

BARTIROMO: But 30% of the border already has a wall. And Nancy Pelosi voted for it. So if she voted for the
30% of it, what’s the problem with the next 40% of it? I don’t understand this. It’s just -- it’s political. [Fox
Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 1/14/19]

FACT: Multiple fact-checkers have debunked comparisons between Trump’s border wall and the legislation
Democrats voted for -- the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which included 700 miles of fencing . An April 2017 Fact-
Check.org article on a similar claim by then-Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney noted that
the Secure Fence Act of 2006 “called for construction of 700 miles of fencing and enhanced surveillance tech-
nology, such as unmanned drones, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage and cameras.” FactCheck.
org wrote that “the scope and political context of the two efforts are quite different. Edward Alden of the Council
on Foreign Relations told the website, “The Democrats, by and large, supported the use of ‘tactical’ fencing in
high-traffic areas, something that the Border Patrol had long favored. Trump’s wall proposal seems to call for fenc-
ing the entire border, which Democrats have never supported.”.

A January 2019 PolitiFact article fact-checked the same argument from Trump that Democrats “changed their
mind” on the border wall “only after I was elected president,” declaring it “mostly false.” According to the article,
Trump’s statement involved “a mischaracterization of the barrier that won Democratic support 13 years ago.” Politi-
Fact added that nearly all of the authorized fencing was completed by 2015 and explained: “Democrats have not
changed their stance on the border fencing they previously supported; they simply don’t support the more ambi-
tious wall Trump proposes.” [FactCheck.org, 4/26/17; PolitiFact, 1/9/19]

January 15
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed that Trump has never indicated he is going to fire special counsel Robert
Mueller.

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): So is it your impression, Senator, that if President Trump were to ever tell [Attor-
ney General William Barr], “I want you to fire Mueller,” that’s what some of the cynical views of some of your
Democratic colleagues is, even though the president’s never indicated that, that he would not do that?
 SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Oh, I think that he made it very clear that even -- he would take a look at any for-
cause arguments and think it through. So there’s no doubt in my mind that he wants to protect the integrity
of this investigation. He wants it completed. He wants to report as much of it to the American people as
possible within the law. But there’s no question in my mind that he’s not going to stand in the way of this
investigation. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 1/15/19]

FACT: The New York Times reported in 2018 that Trump ordered staff to fire Mueller. According to The New York
Times, Trump ordered staff to fire Mueller in June 2017 “but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel
threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.” [The New York Times, 1/25/18]

January 16
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed that “all these people” at the departments of Justice and State “are
against Donald Trump.”

ANDREW NAPOLITANO (FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST): This is a fascinating case and it shows
you how litigation can make very, very strange bedfellows. So Judicial Watch, we all know what that is. They
are commendable, top-of-the-line courageous people whose job is to expose what the government does.
They’re a 501(c)(3) and a think tank. So they sue the State Department for Hillary Clinton’s email information
because the State Department -- the Donald Trump State Department -- did not comply with the Freedom
of Information Act request. The lawsuit is against the State Department. The lawsuit is being resisted by
the Donald Trump State Department and the Donald Trump Department of Justice, even though Donald
Trump himself --

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): I don’t know if you can really call the Department of Justice the Donald
Trump Department of Justice, Judge. I’ve got to push back on that one. And the State Department -- all
these people are against Donald Trump. [Fox News, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 1/16/19]

FACT: More than 50 officials in leadership roles in those departments were appointed by Trump and confirmed
by the Senate. According to CNN, as of December 2017, 61 of Trump’s State Department nominees and 55 of his
DOJ nominees had been confirmed by the Senate. [CNN, 12/31/17]

January 17
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed unpaid Customs and Border Protection officers weren’t opposing Trump’s
government shutdown over border wall funding.

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): In the meantime here, when it comes to what this [government shutdown] is all
about, it’s about the border, it’s about the safety of the border. It’s about building a wall. And you would think
that border agents who are affected by this because they’re not getting paychecks would be very much
against what’s going on here. You would be wrong. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 1/17/19]

FACT: Some CBP officers sued the Trump administration for withholding pay and others spoke out against
Trump’s shutdown. The Washington Post reported on January 10 that the National Treasury Employees Union sued
the Trump administration over unpaid wages on behalf of Customs and Border Protection officers. CNN reported
on January 11 that a union official representing a local unit of the National Border Patrol Council said, “It’s not OK to
say that all federal employees support this shutdown. We don’t. To say that is irresponsible and careless.” And The
Texas Tribune reported on an anonymous statement from a Department of Homeland Security agent who previous-
ly worked for CBP who said “morale is definitely low” because of the shutdown. [The Washington Post, 1/10/19; CNN.
com, 1/11/19; The Texas Tribune, 1/16/19]
 January 18
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed toward the end of the government shutdown that Trump had not yet left
the White House during the shutdown.

LISA BOOTHE (CO-HOST): They’re both being petty. Nancy Pelosi took the unprecedented action of invit-
ing President Trump to deliver the State of the Union and then canceling it. We all know she was full of it
behind her reasonings. For doing so, President Trump was also petty in canceling the trip. It’s hilarious. I
laughed when I found out what he did. The fact that Democrats were on the bus and had to turn around. It’s
pretty funny. But it’s petty.

...

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): The other thing that the president has done is had bipartisan meetings at
the White House. He, in fact, has not left. He hasn’t gone on any trips like this. [Fox News, Outnumbered,
1/18/19]

FACT: Trump went on multiple trips during the shutdown. According to the AP, Trump traveled to Iraq, Texas, and
New Orleans between December 26 and January 14. [The Associated Press, 1/14/19]

January 19
FALSE: Fox News Radio correspondent Jon Decker claimed Democrats say they “are not going to give [Trump]
any money for a physical barrier between the U.S. and Mexico.”

JON DECKER (FOX NEWS RADIO CORRESPONDENT): The president is trying to find some sort of middle
ground, clearly, between what the Democrats and Republicans have offered on both sides. The president
offering that three-year protection for those so-called Dreamers, the DACA recipients, but what I’ve heard
from Democrats is that doesn’t go far enough. They want a pathway to citizenship for these 800,000 or so
individuals who fall under the umbrella of DACA. So that will likely be a nonstarter for the leadership, and in
addition, we heard it once again from the president, he wants $5.7 billion for that border wall with Mexico.
We know from both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and also from the Senate leadership, Chuck Schumer,
that this is a nonstarter. They are not going to give him, they say, any money for a physical barrier between
the U.S. and Mexico. [Fox News, America’s News Headquarters, 1/19/19]

FACT: Democrats refused to negotiate on border security while Trump kept the government closed, but they
offered to discuss funding a border barrier once the shutdown ended. As Vox noted, Democratic leadership was
willing to offer Trump $1.3 billion for the barrier -- the same amount of money that had been allocated for border
barriers the year before. [CNN, 1/20/19; Vox, 12/21/18]

January 20
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed that Trump’s proposal to offer DACA protections to
700,000 recipients is “what the Democrats have been saying for years they want.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): So he has a lot of elements that would be interesting, but
also he’s holding firm on what he’s always promised, that he wants money for the wall, $5.7 billion. So the
bottom line is then he reaches across the aisle and says three years of legislative relief for 700,000 DACA
recipients. This is what Democrats have been saying for years they want. And, oh, by the way, he throws
in another sweetener, three-year extension of TPS, which is eventually -- basically temporary protective
status for about 300,000 other immigrants who are here in America, they’re not yet citizens, they’re from
El Salvador, Honduras, places like that, and they’re supposed to be in line to be deported soon. So he’s say-
ing, “Hang on, Democrats. Timeout here. I’m going to let them stay in the country for three more years. So,
obviously they would be for this. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 1/20/19]
FACT: Democrats have consistently called for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, and Trump’s propos-
al did almost nothing to protect them. As The New Yorker noted, “The offer addressed none of the Democrats’
concerns … on the issue of the Dreamers.” Trump proposed to freeze DACA protections in place for three years for
700,000 recipients. The National Immigration Law Center’s Kamal Essaheb explained to The New Yorker that this
is not a real extension since a three-year time frame would simply mean that work permits would expire in 2022:
“That’s not much of a give, because someone renewing their DACA status today would likely get a work permit into
mid- to late 2021.” [The New Yorker, 1/19/19]

January 21
FALSE: White House correspondent Kevin Corke said Trump wanted to extend “a little bit of an olive branch”
and “offer the Democrats something that they have asked for in the past, DACA protections in this case.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): Let’s go to the White House right now where there’s a lot of back and forth as to
how the president’s overall overture to Democrats is being received. Kevin Corke with more on that, Kevin?

KEVIN CORKE (WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT): Neil, good afternoon. Basically the president wants to
maybe make a little bit of an olive branch. You know, offer the Democrats something that they have asked
for in the past, DACA protections in this case, and maybe they’ll meet him somewhere in the middle. Now,
to be candid, there’s been no deal, clearly. In fact, Democrats aren’t even budging. But that isn’t stopping
the president from trying to sell his idea. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 1/21/19]

FACT: Trump’s minimal proposal to freeze DACA protections for three years was a far cry from what Democrats
have consistently pushed for -- a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Democrats have pushed to replace
DACA with the Dream Act, which would create a path to citizenship for Dreamers. Trump’s proposal would merely
freeze DACA protections in place for three years, and for only 700,000 recipients. The National Immigration Law
Center’s Kamal Essaheb explained to The New Yorker that this is not a real extension since a three-year time frame
would simply mean that work permits expire in 2022: “That’s not much of a give, because someone renewing their
DACA status today would likely get a work permit into mid- to late 2021.” [CBS News, 12/2/18; Los Angeles Times,
9/18/17; The New Yorker, 1/19/2019]

January 22
FALSE: Anchor Eric Shawn claimed that in 2006, Democrats “voted for exactly” what Trump is proposing for the
border wall.

ERIC SHAWN (ANCHOR): What about the broader issue concerning the Democrats back in 2006, for ex-
ample, voted for exactly this -- a fence. Let me show you the vote on that, this was the Secure Fence Act,
2006. Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, [Dianne] Feinstein, President Obama at the time. Dick
Durbin, he’s consistent, said no. And yet, now you have got one-third less of a fence, the Democrats op-
pose. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 1/22/19]

FACT: Multiple fact-checkers have debunked comparisons between Trump’s border wall and the legislation
Democrats voted for -- the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which included 700 miles of fencing. An April 2017 Fact-
Check.org article on a similar claim by then-OMB Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney noted
that the Secure Fence Act of 2006 “called for construction of 700 miles of fencing and enhanced surveillance
technology, such as unmanned drones, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage and cameras.” Fact-
Check.org wrote that “the scope and political context of the two efforts are quite different.” Edward Alden of the
Council on Foreign Relations told the website, “The Democrats, by and large, supported the use of ‘tactical’ fencing
in high-traffic areas, something that the Border Patrol had long favored. Trump’s wall proposal seems to call for
fencing the entire border, which Democrats have never supported.”
A January 2019 PolitiFact article fact-checked an argument from Trump that Democrats “changed their mind” on
the border wall “only after I was elected president,” declaring it “mostly false.” According to the article, “Democrats
have not changed their stance on the border fencing they previously supported; they simply don’t support the
more ambitious wall Trump proposes.” [FactCheck.org, 4/26/17; PolitiFact, 1/9/19]

January 23
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed that Ocasio-Cortez is “talking about 70% tax rates.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (HOST): You’ve got people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking about 70% tax rates.
The Democrats, if they take the Senate in two years, does that mean heavier regulation? You know what
Elizabeth Warren wants to do with the banks. [Fox News, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 1/23/19]

FACT: Ocasio-Cortez proposed a 70% marginal tax rate, which is not the same thing as a 70% tax rate. As Oc-
asio-Cortez explained to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes, a marginal tax “doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at
an extremely high rate” but rather that some of top earners’ income would be taxed at a higher rate after it passed
a certain threshold. Herproposed top marginal tax of 70% would apply only to individuals who have more than $10
million in annual taxable income, and the 70% tax would apply only to the taxable income those individuals made
past the $10 million mark. [Media Matters, 1/14/19]

January 24
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum claimed that a new law in New York allows abortions “basically at any time
during the pregnancy,” including “even up until the point of birth.”

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): A big applause that went on for quite some time actually, bursting into
applause in the Senate chamber in New York over the Reproductive Health Act, which provides sweeping
new safeguards for abortion, allowing them basically at any time during the pregnancy, in some cases, even
up until the point of birth. [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 1/24/19]

FACT: Right-wing media spread a lot of misinformation surrounding the Reproductive Health Act, including
the inaccurate allegation that the law allows abortions “up until the moment of birth.” Abortion at the “moment
of birth” is not something that happens, no matter how frequently right-wing actors repeat this talking point. As
Forbes’ Tara Haelle explained in 2016, those who seek later abortions “are seeking them before a pregnancy reach-
es full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or third trimester some problem
with the fetus or danger to the mother.” Later abortions are often medically necessary and extremely rare, “with
slightly more than 1 percent of procedures performed past the 21-week mark.” In some instances, economic or
logistical barriers erected by medically unnecessary anti-choice laws make earlier abortion access impossible.
[Media Matters, 1/31/19]

January 25
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum claimed New York’s Reproductive Health Act “allows for abortion up until
birth in some cases.”

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): New fallout tonight from New York state’s sweeping reproductive rights
bill that allows for abortion up until birth in some cases. Some Catholics, so outraged at the governor of
New York, Andrew Cuomo, who is Catholic, for signing this into law that they have called upon the arch-
bishop in New York to excommunicate him from the church. [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum,
1/25/19]

FACT: Right-wing media spread a lot of misinformation surrounding the Reproductive Health Act, including that
the law allows abortions up until the “moment of birth.” Abortion at the “moment of birth” is not something that
happens, now matter how frequently right-wing actors repeat this talking point. As Forbes’ Tara Haelle explained in
2016, those who seek later abortions “are seeking them before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfor-
tunately after they have discovered in the second or third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the
mother.” Later abortions are often medically necessary and extremely rare, “with slightly more than 1 percent of
procedures performed past the 21-week mark.” In some instances, economic or logistical barriers erected by med-
ically unnecessary anti-choice laws make earlier abortion access impossible. [Media Matters, 1/31/19]

January 26
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed that Ocasio-Cortez wants to tax the wealthy “as much as 70%.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): Obviously this back-and-forth comes amid a clarion call on the part of many Dem-
ocrats who have taken over the House. To remind folks there there’s a new sheriff in town, and that sheriff
is looking to go after the rich, not necessarily the Congresswoman Cortez route by taxing them as much as
70%, but to, like Elizabeth Warren, put a percentage on their wealth and tax that, raise overall taxes, what
they are contemplating in the House. [Fox News, Cavuto Live, 1/26/19]

FACT: Ocasio-Cortez proposed a 70% marginal tax rate, which is not the same thing as a 70% tax rate. As Oc-
asio-Cortez explained to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes, a marginal tax “doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at
an extremely high rate” but rather that some of top earners’ income would be taxed at a higher rate after it passed
a certain threshold. Her proposed top marginal tax of 70% would apply only to individuals who have more than $10
million in annual taxable income, and the 70% tax would apply only to the taxable income those individuals made
past the $10 million mark. [Media Matters, 1/14/19]

January 27
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed, “You see what’s happening on the ground in Texas, you
look at the facts, and noncitizens voting in multiple elections.” Henry was helping push a misleading statistic
claiming that 58,000 noncitizens have voted in Texas.

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS (PRESIDENT, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION): This is the real foreign influ-
ence in our elections, and this is why President Trump had an election integrity commission that I was on,
and we would have gotten to the bottom of this. The problem is that, Katie -- that all of these academics,
civil rights groups, frankly, party officials in a certain party, are against getting to the truth. They don’t want
you to know that 58,000 people who aren’t citizens are voting in Texas.

...

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Well, and this is a thing: Democrats said that the border
crisis was a manufactured crisis. Not true. Conservatives have been saying throughout this whole battle
over illegal immigration that Democrats have a strategy: Get as many illegals across the border long-term,
and they’re going to eventually become voters for Democrats. Democrats say, oh, that’s nonsense, they
don’t vote. Illegals can’t vote, this voter fraud thing is a canard. Well then you see what’s happening on the
ground in Texas, you look at the facts, and noncitizens voting in multiple elections -- it makes you wonder.
[Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 1/27/19]

FACT: The report referenced contains 95,000 names “whom the state says counties should consider checking
to see whether they are … legally eligible to vote” and that of the 95,000, “about 58,000 individuals cast a ballot
in one or more elections from 1996 to 2018.” The Texas secretary of state’s office advised counties that the names
on the list “should be considered ‘WEAK’ matches, using all capital letters for emphasis.” Chris Davis, head of the
Texas Association of Elections Administrators, told the Texas Tribune “people get naturalized. It’s entirely too early
to say that” those who voted did so illegally. The Tribune also noted that “it’s possible that individuals flagged by
the state … could have become naturalized citizens since they obtained their driver’s licenses or ID card” and that
“it’s unclear exactly how many of those individuals are not actually U.S. citizens and whether that number will be
available in the future.”Fox’s guest during the segment J. Christian Adams has a history of pushing false conspiracy
theories regarding elections and voter fraud. [The Texas Tribune, 1/25/19; Media Matters, 10/18/16, 11/7/16]

January 28
FALSE: Legal and political analyst Gregg Jarrett claimed conspiracy theorist Roger Stone’s indictment was
simply “for a process crime.” He added that the indictment is “proof yet again that there is no known evidence of
Trump-Russian collusion.”

GREGG JARRETT (LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYST): Look at the nature of the most recent indictments:
Roger Stone for a process crime. It is proof yet again that there is no known evidence of Trump-Russian
collusion. This is a process crime that is an offense against Mueller, essentially, an offense against his in-
vestigation. If he had some evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, if Stone was conspiring with WikiLeaks or
[WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange or the Russians, he would have been charged and so would others. But
he didn’t do that. [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 1/28/19]

FACT: As The Washington Post reported, “The Roger Stone charge is anything but a ‘mere process’ crime.”
Jarrett repeated a common right-wing defense of Roger Stone used to downplay and minimize the developments
in Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, “the new indictment pairs Stone’s alleged activities in this country
during the 2016 campaign with the conspiracy charges Mueller brought in July against a dozen Russian military
intelligence officers and a Russian organization now accused of hacking the Hillary Clinton campaign’s computer
networks and coordinating the release of the hacked emails to influence the election in Trump’s favor.”Additionally,
the Stone indictment “suggests a clear link between Stone and the actions of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.”
Essentially, the indictment alleges that Stone played a “role in the hacking conspiracy.” [The Washington Post,
1/25/19]

January 29
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner argued that “Medicare for All” would “widen the gap between the rich and the
poor” because the wealthy would just pay out of pocket.

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): So, what I hear you saying, too, is that more people would have to, and I
would imagine the wealthier among us would have to pay out of pocket, and that gives them the kind of
advantage that, I don’t know -- tell me if I’m wrong, Congressman -- widens the gap between the rich and
the poor.

REP. MARK GREEN (R-TN): Absolutely. Those who can afford it will just create Cadillac health care systems
for themselves and the rest of us -- I mean, nobody’s emulating Canadian health care. I mean, it’s six -- I got
a friend up there, six months to get an MRI. If we go to health care for all, that’s what we’re going to have.
We’re going to have rationed care and it’s not going to be what Americans want. [Fox News, Outnumbered
Overtime, 1/29/19]

FACT: As detailed in a study published by the Harvard Public Health Review, “a national single-payer health
insurance program offers the best possibility for equitable financing of U.S. health care.” According to the
Harvard Public Health Review, single-payer health insurance would “eliminate the motive to deny needed care or
discriminate against the expensively ill for the sake of profit.” Additionally, “a national public insurance system
would provide coverage based on residence in the U.S., not employment status, income level or ability to pay, as in
the current regime.” The authors of the study concluded, “A program that abolished co-payments and deductibles
would level the playing field for minorities and the poor who generally lack the assets to surmount these barriers.”
[Harvard Public Health Review, accessed 5/6/19]
 January 30
FALSE: Anchor Melissa Francis claimed “Medicare for All” is “not possible” and that it’s a “cruel thing to dangle”
it in front of voters.

MELISSA FRANCIS (ANCHOR): When you say Medicare for All, it is a cruel thing to dangle in front of people
because it’s not possible. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 1/30/19]

FACT: Medicare for All is an ambitious proposal but saying it is “not possible” is premature at best. Recently,
the Congressional Budget Office released a report about the possible design of Medicare for All, “outlining the cost
and policy effects of a wide range of difficult choices.” The report did not reach any conclusions on the cost of
Medicare for All because the “magnitude of such responses is difficult to predict because the existing evidence is
based on previous changes that were much smaller in scale.” [Vox, 3/20/19; The New York Times, 5/1/19]

January 31
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed Democrats supported construction of a wall under Obama, implying they
changed their position only when Trump proposed a wall.

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): Do you have a problem with a wall? Yes or no?

REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX): Yes, I do. It’s a 14th-century solution. Have you seen --

CAVUTO: But Democrats voted for a wall funding when Barack Obama was president. [Fox News, Your World
with Neil Cavuto, 1/31/19]

FACT: As part of the failed 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, Democrats voted to have the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security examine where fencing should be used along the border. According to PolitiFact,
“The bill directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit two reports on border security strategy, including
one on where fencing, infrastructure and technology should be used; authorized the use of the National Guard to
help secure the border; called for an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents at the southern border, and
other border security measures.It also included provisions to allow immigrants in the country illegally to adjust
their immigration status, if they met certain criteria.” [PolitiFact, 1/9/19]
Fe b r u a r y

Neil Cavuto
Your World & Cavuto Live
on Fox News
 February 1
FALSE: In the midst of the government shutdown, chief national correspondent Ed Henry suggested there were
“over 30 Blue Dog Democrats in the House” who wanted a wall, adding that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is “thumb-
ing her nose at her fellow Democrats” by not supporting a vote on wall funding.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Weren’t there over 30 Blue Dog Democrats in the House,
in Pelosi’s own caucus, who said, “Hey, I want, whether it’s a wall, a barrier,” and Nancy Pelosi is thumbing
her nose at her fellow Democrats.

SHELBY HOLLIDAY (WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTER): It’s true and it’s amazing to listen to them now
giving interviews, even this morning saying it’s a fence. “I supported a fence.” They won’t say the word “wall.”
[Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 2/1/19]

FACT: Henry is misinterpreting a letter sent to Pelosi by House Democrats. The letter actually suggested that
Pelosi should “guarantee President Donald Trump a vote on his border security funding request if he reopens the
government.” Urging “a House vote — but not passage — on the $5.7 billion Trump has requested in border wall
funding” in the interest of re-opening the federal government is different than expressing support for a wall itself,
as Henry claimed. [Roll Call, 1/23/19].

February 2
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed the FBI used “Navy SEALs” to arrest Trump campaign aide Roger Stone and
that it used “more people than we used to take down Osama bin Laden.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): The FBI using an unusual large show of force, including Navy SEALs, outside Rog-
er Stone’s home to formally arrest him and raid his home. And I’m thinking to myself, “Self, these were more
people than we used to take down Osama bin Laden.” Even [Sen.] Lindsey Graham wants to know why such
extreme measures were taken in the case. [Fox News, Cavuto Live, 2/2/19]

FACT: Navy SEALs did not arrest Stone, and the government used more force to “take down” bin Laden, who
was killed. While “at least a dozen FBI agents” arrested Stone at his home in an early morning raid, this may be at-
tributed to prosecutors’ warning that “there was a danger he would destroy evidence if he was arrested in any way
that gave him a way to do so or an opportunity to surrender.” Agents knocked on the door and announced them-
selves, then Stone let them in and surrendered peacefully. In the raid on bin Laden, a team of Navy SEALs broke
into bin Laden’s stronghold “in a battle that went on for about 40 minutes.” Bin Laden’s sons were killed, and “two
women were tackled by a SEAL who feared they were wearing suicide vests.” Bin Laden was then killed by a Navy
SEAL. [The Washington Post, 1/28/19]

February 3
FALSE: While discussing Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s comments on a failed abortion bill, chief national corre-
spondent Ed Henry claimed Northam was “basically supporting infanticide.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Three days or so earlier, Nancy Pelosi was asked by our
producer Chad Pergram at a news conference, “What about Ralph Northam basically supporting infanti-
cide?” She said, “I didn’t hear anything about that,” moved on to another reporter. She couldn’t duck that
question any faster. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 2/3/19]

FACT: A common right-wing myth inaccurately conflates abortions later in pregnancy with “infanticide.” Re-
cently proposed Democratic state bills do not call for “infanticide,” despite numerous false claims from anti-choice
and right-wing media. As Forbes’ Tara Haelle explained in 2016, people who need later abortions “are seeking them
before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or
third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the mother.” In other instances, anti-choice restrictions
prohibit earlier access to abortion care. Northam’s radio interview included comments in which he gave his opinion
on “what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at abortion.” Northam later clarified that his com-
ments were meant to “focus on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy
or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.” As HuffPost further explained, “Northam was describing end-of-
life care in a painful circumstance … not murder.” [Media Matters, 1/31/19; Forbes, 10/20/16; The Cut, 2/1/19; Vox,
2/1/19; HuffPost, 1/31/19]

February 4
FALSE: Politics editor Chris Stirewalt smeared Northam’s abortion position, calling him “Dr. Death” and floating
pro-life smears that Northam supports infanticide.

CHRIS STIREWALT (POLITICS EDITOR): This is the guy, Dr. Death, this is the guy who, in the grimmest
possible terms, talked about what Republicans and pro-life people say is infanticide. [Fox News, America’s
Newsroom, 2/4/19]

FACT: A common right-wing myth inaccurately conflates abortions later in pregnancy with “infanticide.”
Recently proposed Democratic bills do not call for “infanticide,” despite numerous false claims from anti-choice
and right-wing media. As Forbes’ Tara Haelle explained in 2016, people who need later abortions “are seeking them
before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or
third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the mother.” In other instances, anti-choice restrictions
prohibit earlier access to abortion care. Northam’s radio interview included comments where he gave his opinion
on “what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at abortion.” Northam later clarified that his com-
ments were meant to “focus on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy
or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.” As HuffPost further explained, “Northam was describing end-of-
life care in a painful circumstance … not murder.” [Media Matters, 1/31/19; Forbes, 10/20/16; The Cut, 2/1/19; Vox,
2/1/19; HuffPost, 1/31/19]

February 5
FALSE: Senior political analyst Brit Hume suggested that Senate Republicans’ so-called “Born-Alive” bill is nec-
essary to protect newly born infants.

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Senate Democrats blocked an anti-infanticide bill, you may have read. The bill
would have protected children who somehow survived abortion. There aren’t a lot, but there are some, it’s
a real category. Republican [Sen.] Ben Sasse introduced legislation after Democrats in multiple states
advanced legislation that makes it possible to have an abortion right to the end of the third trimester, right
into dilation. Republicans still have the option of bringing that bill up for a vote, but will they? Brit Hume has
been following this story and he joins us tonight.

BRIT HUME (SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST): I should point out what that Sasse bill did was to say that, you
know, if a child, wanted or unwanted, is somehow born and survives abortion then it should get medical
care. And obviously should not be put to death. And the Democratic objection to it was that “well, you know,
we have laws against killing, infanticide, so this was not needed.” But this was a little more than that. It
did require medical attention, which, you know, rather than having a doctor be able to simply say, “Well,
you know, after consulting with the mother,” as [Virginia Gov.] Ralph Northam described, “the kid is in bad
shape, just let the little critter die.” Well, that would be forbidden by this bill. And a single -- it needed unan-
imous consent to proceed on the Senate floor. And they didn’t get it. [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight,
2/5/19]
FACT: So-called “born-alive” bills are based on nothing but propaganda and do nothing to protect infants. The
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that Hume is discussing purports to protect infants by mandating
that doctors provide care in the event of a failed abortion. In reality, as Rewire.News notes, these bills “do nothing
but vilify physicians who provide reproductive health care.” Failed abortions are extremely rare, and laws already
exist to protect newborns. Obviously, murder is illegal and doctors can be held legally responsible for failing to take
all medical steps possible to save lives via malpractice suits. Congress also passed a law in 2002 that guarantees
full legal rights to all infants. As Drs. Daniel Grossman and Jennifer Conti pointed out to The New York Times, it
is more likely that the bill would force doctors to pursue treatment options that run counter to patients’ wishes
-- such as ensuring that a fetus delivered “at the edge of viability” but unlikely to survive could not receive “com-
fort care” which would “allow the child to die naturally without extreme attempts at resuscitation.” [Rewire.News,
4/12/19; Vox, 2/26/19; The New York Times, 2/26/19]

February 6
FALSE: Anchor Bill Hemmer echoed Trump’s claim that there have been “600,000-plus” manufacturing jobs
created under his watch.

BILL HEMMER (ANCHOR): Checking the markets right now. Opening up now for the first time since the
second State of the Union address. There was some talk about China trade last night and tariffs, etc. The
president touting the strong U.S. economy, talking about the unemployment numbers, the job numbers for
African Americans, for Hispanics and Americans of all colors. Then he talked about the manufacturing jobs
that have been created under his watch, 600,000-plus. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 2/6/19]

FACT: Less than 500,000 manufacturing jobs had been created under the Trump presidency. The Toronto Star’s
Daniel Dale cited the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that there had been an increase in 454,000 manufac-
turing jobs under Trump. [Twitter, 2/5/19]

February 7
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed there was no point in increasing taxes on the wealthy because “they
will come up with various structures to hide income, and so, at the end of the day, the government is not getting
that revenue anyway.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): It is confiscation because the truth is you can work your whole life, work
really hard, achieve success, make money, and then get it taken away. Confiscated by the government.
These policies oftentimes lead to unintended consequences where people will actually see that they’re
being overtaxed, see that they’re being -- their money is being confiscated, and they will come up with
various structures to hide income, and so, at the end of the day, the government is not getting that reve-
nue anyway. I’m talking about legal structures, in some ways, where people will try their hardest to change
the way their income is measured and that’s one of the unintended consequences. [Fox News, America’s
Newsroom, 2/7/19]

FACT: Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute admitted that raising the top marginal income tax
rate would raise billions in revenue a year, even if the rich attempted to shelter their money. While Bartiromo
used Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) wealth tax proposal as her entry point to the discussion, she quickly pivoted
instead to talking specifically about income. AEI used Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) proposal for a 70%
tax on income over $10 million as an example and found that even if the wealthy tried to shield their money, govern-
ment revenue would still increase by billions. [American Enterprise Institute, 1/28/19]
 February 8
FALSE: Maria Bartiromo claimed wind and solar energy “cannot move a car,” adding that getting rid of fossil
fuels is “basically saying you want to get rid of cars.”

MARIA BARTIROMO: Wind and solar cannot fly a plane, cannot move a car. So if you want to get rid of fossil
fuels within the next 10 years, then you’re basically saying you want to get rid of cars and planes. [Fox News,
Mornings with Maria, 2/8/19]

FACT: Renewable energy is perfectly capable of moving cars. More than 200,000 electric vehicles were regis-
tered in the U.S. in 2018, and as renewable energy grows in the U.S., more of those cars are being powered by wind
and solar power. For example, EVgo, the nation’s largest electric vehicle-charging network, recently announced
that it will “contract 100% of the energy needed to power its customers with renewable energy,” according to
CleanTechnica. [Engadget, 4/16/19; CleanTechnica, 5/8/19]

February 9
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed the Green New Deal calls for “replacing every building in
America” and “ending air travel.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rolling out

the Green New Deal, which many critics are calling a pipe dream. The plan calling for quote-unquote, “World
War II-level mobilization,” replacing every building in America, ending air travel, and even ensuring econom-
ic security for those who are unwilling to work. At least that’s what some of the talking points suggest. [Fox
News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 2/9/19]

FACT: The resolution does not propose eliminating planes or “replacing” every building in the country. The
Green New Deal resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) says
nothing about planes or air travel. An FAQ document released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office (and later retracted) did
not call for ending air travel either, instead saying that it would be unrealistic to “fully get rid” of airplanes within 10
years. Neither the resolution nor the FAQ calls for replacing all buildings. Instead, the resolution proposes “upgrad-
ing all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency,
water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability.” [H.R. 109, 2/7/19; FactCheck.org, 2/15/19]

February 10
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry asserted that “we may have up to 42 million people more coming
from Latin America in the next few years.”

JEDEDIAH BILA (CO-HOST): If you look at Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO of Gallup, he came out, there
was a poll and it said, “Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine ex-
actly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially
attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they
are moving to the U.S.” So Gallup conducted this poll and put it out there to stress, “Look, you know, we’re
talking about an emergency situation.” Many folks on the left are ignoring that, they’re saying it’s a manu-
factured crisis. When you look at these numbers, you realize we do have to figure out what to do with these
people, we do have to figure out a plan moving forward, now or never.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Because what they’re saying there, Gallup, is millions
more coming from Latin America, migrants, some legal, some trying to get in illegally. And so Democrats
continue to say it’s a manufactured crisis even though we may have up to 42 million more people coming
from Latin America in the next few years. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 2/10/19]
FACT: This is a misleading distortion of a poll that shows 42 million Central Americans would like to move to the
United States. Gallup estimated that “42 million [Central Americans] want to come to the U.S.” It did not say all of
these people are serious in their intent and have the means to emigrate. [Gallup, 2/8/19]

February 11
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto pushed the idea that Democrats’ call for a cap on ICE detention beds was a “gre-
nade” added to spending bill negotiations “out of the blue.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): I guess the thing that’s of greatest concern is you want to limit the standard to
16,500 [ICE beds]. Now, the existing cap is north of 40,000. I know it’s kind of loose and people have not
really adhered to these caps per se. But it came -- from what Republicans are telling me, Congressman, just
came out of the blue. Like you dropped that grenade in the middle of what looked like constructive talks.

...

CAVUTO: But this issue came out of nowhere, right? I mean, you agreed on the broad blueprints. You got
the president down to under $2 billion for a wall. It looked like everyone was inching toward that. This issue
came up and now a lot of Republicans are saying if we have a shutdown because your colleagues forced
this issue, it will be on them, not on the president.

REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD): This did not come out of the blue. [Rep. Lucille] Roybal-Allard, the chair, as I
said, has been talking about this issue for a very long period of time. This is not a new issue.

...

CAVUTO: Do you feel that maybe some of your colleagues were maybe feeling a little bit emboldened by
how they handled the first shutdown that maybe they had the president on the ropes and that they could
push something that nobody saw coming? [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 2/11/2019]

FACT: Democrats’ proposed cap on ICE detention beds was not new or unexpected. House Democrats’ January
31 offer specifically limited the average daily population (ADP) “associated with interior enforcement to 16,500 be-
tween enactment and the end of FY19,” noting that “this is the approximate ADP level during the last three months
of the Obama Administration.” [The Washington Post, 1/31/19]

February 12
FALSE: Chief White House correspondent John Roberts claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was
willing to give no money for border fencing.

JOHN ROBERTS (CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT): In terms of the money, it is about the same as
what the president rejected just before Christmastime, about $1.3 billion for 55 miles of border fencing, but
it is $1.3 billion more than Nancy Pelosi had said that she was willing to give. [Fox News, America’s News-
room, 2/12/19]

FACT: Pelosi publicly said on January 31 that she was open to “enhanced fencing” on the southern border. Pelosi
said during a press conference that “there’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation. … However, if they
have some suggestions” for improved technology or infrastructure such as “enhanced fencing,” then “that’s part of
the negotiation.” [NBC News, 1/31/19]
 February 13
FALSE: Correspondent Peter Doocy reported that the Green New Deal “seeks to eliminate flatulent cows.”

PETER DOOCY (CORRESPONDENT): The Green New Deal also seeks to eliminate flatulent cows, something
Iowa’s senator has beef with. [Fox News, Special Report, 2/13/19]

FACT: The Green New Deal resolution does not propose eliminating cows. The resolution text says nothing about
cows. Its only mention of agriculture calls for “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United
States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologi-
cally feasible,” through steps such as “supporting family farming.” Cows were mentioned in an FAQ document that
was released (and then quickly retracted) by the office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), but the docu-
ment said it would be unrealistic to “fully get rid of farting cows” within 10 years. [HR 109, 2/7/19; FactCheck.org,
2/15/19;]

February 14
FALSE: Anchor Shannon Bream pushed the claim that the Green New Deal included a guarantee of “economic
security for those unwilling to work.”

SHANNON BREAM (ANCHOR): One estimate is that $25 billion would have come in [from the New York
Amazon headquarters] over the next 25 years to this locality. Phil Oliva, who actually ran as a Republican for
Congress there in New York, he said this: “The people who this week proposed ‘economic security for those
unwilling to work,’” part of the green deal, “today celebrate killing 25,000 high-paying jobs for those who are
willing. #SocialismKills, #AmazonHQ2.” [Fox News, Fox News @ Night, 2/14/19]

FACT: The phrase “unwilling to work” came from an FAQ document about the Green New Deal proposal, which
was quickly retracted; there is no mention of the phrase in the Green New Deal resolution. Ocasio-Cortez’s of-
fice published an FAQ about the Green New Deal online that included details not mentioned in the resolution itself.
The document was quickly pulled from the site, and Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff and her communications direc-
tor each clarified that the FAQ page was mistakenly published and did not accurately represent the Green New Deal
resolution -- all of which happened several days before Bream’s statement. [FactCheck.org, 2/15/19]

February 15
FALSE: White House correspondent Kevin Corke suggested Trump’s national emergency declaration for a bor-
der wall is comparable to emergencies declared by other presidents.

KEVIN CORKE (WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT): So you may be saying, “All right, that sounds great.”
Unless, of course, you’re a Democrat. Let me tell you what [Sen.] Chuck Schumer had to say about that. He
and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi actually issuing a statement, a pretty interesting statement, and basi-
cally he is saying, “This is lawless, you can’t do this, Mr. President.” What he’s not telling you is other presi-
dents have certainly had several national emergencies. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/15/19]

FACT: Trump’s national emergency is different from previous emergencies in that it is an explicit attempt to
get funding for a project Congress has already (and repeatedly) refused to fund. Trump explicitly said that if he
declared a national emergency over the southern border, it would be to build the border wall that Congress has
refused to fund. When other presidents have declared national emergencies, it was to do things like impose sanc-
tions on and freeze assets of human rights violators, terrorists, and narcotics traffickers. As The New York Times’
Charlie Savage described it, Trump’s national emergency is the first such declaration “challenging the bedrock
principle that the legislative branch controls the government’s purse.” [The Washington Post, 1/4/19; The New York
Times, 2/15/19]
 February 16
FALSE: Correspondent Griff Jenkins asked if 2020 Democratic candidates have to support “open borders” to be
elected, implying Democratic voters are largely in favor of such a concept. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend,
2/16/19]

FACT: Virtually no currently elected Democrats are for open borders, and polling shows most Democratic vot-
ers support border security measures. Democratic lawmakers, chosen by Democratic voters, in fact do support
border security measures. As NBC explained, “Many Democrats have called for reforming immigration enforcement
… but no prominent lawmakers have pushed for open borders. Democratic leaders, amid the recent government
spending fight that led to the longest shutdown in U.S. history, consistently rejected Trump’s wall while still advo-
cating for border security in general.” Furthermore, a Gallup poll found that, while 60% of Americans oppose major
construction of new segments of the wall, “three-fourths of the public favors another method of increasing border
security -- the hiring of ‘significantly more’ border patrol agents.” [NBC News, 2/5/19; Gallup, 2/4/19]

February 17
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed the interest on the U.S. national debt totals $1 trillion per day.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): I said a trillion dollars when I was talking with Congressman [Kevin] Mc-
Carthy. I want to make sure people understand: That’s a trillion dollars a day. A trillion dollars a day, just in
interest payments. [Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures, 2/17/19]

FACT: Interest on the U.S. national debt in 2018 was $325 billion (or less than $1 billion per day), not $1 trillion
per day, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The committee drew its data from the
Congressional Budget Office. [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2/13/19]

February 18
FALSE: During a segment about a universal basic income program in Stockton, CA, guest anchor Charles Payne
claimed that “the same program was tried in Finland … with a lot more people. Over 100,000 people, they spent
$23 million.”

CHARLES PAYNE (GUEST ANCHOR): This same program was tried in Finland over a two-year period with a
lot more people. Over 100,000 people, they spent $23 million. The initial results have not been that great,
they say they’ll keep examining if they really changed anyone’s lives. [Fox News, Your World, 2/18/19]

FACT: The universal basic income programs in Finland and California are not the “same program,” and the Finn-
ish program included only 2,000 people. The Finnish UBI program discussed in this segment included just 2,000
people, not “over 100,000 people” as Payne claimed, and it gave money only to the unemployed. The Stockton, CA,
program Payne discussed had no employment requirement. [The Sacramento Bee, 2/15/19; Vox, 4/6/19]

February 19
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum suggested there were Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants target-
ing the Trump campaign.

TREY GOWDY (FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR): If you look at the FBI document, which was drafted by and ap-
proved by Peter Strzok, it was a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. Now, the FBI
doesn’t like it when I say that, but unfortunately I’ve seen the documents. I know exactly what Strzok wrote.
They want you to believe that it was into what Russia was doing, and that’s fine. That’s appropriate. Unfor-
tunately, Strozk used the phrase “Trump campaign.” So that was the one from July of 2016, and now Mc-
Cabe says there was one in May of 2017 in addition to the criminal investigation into obstruction of justice.
 MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): Understood, understood. And everybody knows that the FISA warrants
were happening during the time of the original investigation, which goes right to the heart of what you’re
saying about the Trump campaign in and of itself. [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 2/19/19]

FACT: The only known FISA warrants issued to monitor anyone associated with the Trump campaign were for
Carter Page, and the application for that warrant was not submitted until a month after he left the campaign.
The Washington Post explained:

On Sept. 26, 2016, Page announced he had resigned from the Trump campaign. About a month later, on Oct.
21, as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the election, the FBI made an initial application
for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor Page’s conversations. The FISA war-
rant was approved and then renewed three times for 90-day increments by several judges. [The Washing-
ton Post, 5/6/19]

February 20
FALSE: Correspondent Doug McKelway claimed a “milder version of [the Green New Deal] failed during the
Obama administration.”

DOUG MCKELWAY (CORRESPONDENT): It took only a week after the rollout of the Green New Deal before
California Gov. Gavin Newsom crashed the party. I know you’ve been talking about this today. He drastically
slashed his state’s bullet train project, and it ballooned in cost from an initial $10 billion to $77 billion today.
Newsom was reluctant to scrap the whole thing because of money already spent.

...

MCKELWAY: Some say it’s the perfect metaphor for the utopian vision of the Green New Deal, a milder
version of which failed during the Obama administration. [Fox News, Outnumbered Overtime with Harris
Faulkner, 2/20/19]

FACT: Nothing closely resembling the Green New Deal was implemented during the Obama administration, but
a major 2009 stimulus package, which steered $90 billion toward clean energy, was considered by many ex-
perts to be a success. The $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $90 billion in
spending on renewable energy and clean tech. Politico reporter Michael Grunwald, who published a book about the
stimulus bill, recently wrote that the bill’s clean-energy investment was “substantively groundbreaking for clean
energy” and “jump-started America’s gradual transition to a low-carbon economy.” Joseph Aldy, a Harvard profes-
sor who worked on energy policy in the Obama administration, recently noted that the stimulus bill’s clean-energy
investments “catalyzed rapid growth in renewable power. Since 2008, wind power has more than tripled and solar
power has increased 80-fold.” The stimulus bill was also considered successful in combating the recession. Ac-
cording to Grunwald, it “succeeded in its main goal of averting a depression and ending a brutal recession.” And a
review of studies on the stimulus bill found that two-thirds credited it with a positive impact: As Dylan Matthews
wrote for The Washington Post, “Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive
effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect. ...
I’m inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.” [Politico, 1/15/19; Grist,
8/14/12; The Conversation, 2/15/19; The Washington Post, 8/24/11]

February 21
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto suggested it was the GOP candidate who pushed for a new election in a disputed
North Carolina House race: “Mark Harris has already called for a new election. … If Mark Harris has things his
way, he wants a new election.”
 NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): Also on this busy news day, I do want to pass along something that’s coming along
from The Washington Post and a host of others. A North Carolina board has ordered a new election in that
North Carolina House race. Republican Mark Harris has already called for a new election. You might recall
that he had currently led the Democrat, Dan McCready, by about 1,000 votes in what was deemed an un-
decided congressional race from last year. If Mark Harris has things his way, he wants a new election. The
North Carolina board has done so. So this disputed seat that has been held sort of in abeyance for the bet-
ter part of a couple of months now will be decided one way or the other. No date has been set. But already
you have Mark Harris himself, the Republican, saying for North Carolina’s 9th District, let’s just do a do-over
on this. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 2/21/19]

FACT: Harris, whose campaign was accused of engaging in illegal ballot tampering, spent months demanding
the North Carolina Board of Elections certify his election before he reversed himself amid hearings. According
to NPR:

It was a dramatic and humbling reversal for Harris, a pastor who until now had insisted that the elections
board certify his 905-vote lead over Democrat Dan McCready in the unofficial tally so that he could take a
seat in Congress.

Four days of hearings had left that position increasingly untenable as witnesses detailed how an operative
hired by Harris illegally handled absentee ballots, a felony in North Carolina. One witness said she filled in
unmarked sections of ballots. Harris’ own son testified on Wednesday that he had warned his father that
the operative’s tactics were likely illegal. [NPR, 2/21/19]

February 22
FALSE: Correspondent Peter Doocy claimed that the Green New Deal calls for “eliminating cows.”

PETER DOOCY (CORRESPONDENT): One of the Green New Deal’s least popular provisions: lowering Earth’s
temperature by eliminating cows. [Fox News, Special Report, 2/22/19]

FACT: The Green New Deal resolution does not propose eliminating cows. The resolution text says nothing about
cows. Its only mention of agriculture calls for “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United
States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologi-
cally feasible,” through steps such as “supporting family farming.” Cows were mentioned in an FAQ document that
was released (and then quickly retracted) by Ocasio-Cortez’s office, but the document said it would be unrealistic
to “fully get rid of farting cows” within 10 years. [HR 109, 2/7/19; FactCheck.org, 2/15/19]

February 23
FALSE: While discussing a group of schoolchildren who expressed their support for the Green New Deal to Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), correspondent Todd Piro suggested the plan would eliminate cars and planes .

TODD PIRO (CORRESPONDENT): I want to pose this one little thing to the kids. It’s not to be mean to the
children, but how did you get to Sen. Feinstein’s office? Was it by car? Was it by plane? Your activities that
you go to, going to school and everything? Do you get driven by car? Would you rather walk? I mean, these
are things that these kids need to be told because there is a reality of the situation and it is, you kinda need
a car. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 2/23/19]

FACT: A common right-wing myth is that the Green New Deal seeks to eliminate cars and airplanes. In reality,
the Green New Deal resolution calls for no such thing. As FactCheck.org explained, “It only states that transpor-
tation emissions should be reduced ‘as much as is technically feasible,’ and suggests three ways of reaching that
goal, including high-speed rail and zero-emission vehicles, which would include electric cars. There is no mention
of air travel.” [FactCheck.org, 2/15/19]
 February 24
FALSE: Correspondent Griff Jenkins promoted Trump’s claim that without him, the U.S. and North Korea might
have gone to war: “No one seems to acknowledge that.”

GRIFF JENKINS (CORRESPONDENT): The president was asked about it and he said, “Look, you know, we
might have been at war had I not done the things I did.” So no one seems to acknowledge that, although he
is trying to still defend the progress he has made. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 2/24/19]

FACT: Trump has implied on numerous occasions that the Obama administration was on the brink of war with
North Korea before Trump intervened, but “nobody who worked for Mr. Obama has publicly endorsed this as-
sessment,” according to The New York Times’ Peter Baker. Baker wrote, “It is impossible to prove a negative, of
course, but nobody who worked for Mr. Obama has publicly endorsed this assessment, nor have any of the mem-
oirs that have emerged from his administration disclosed any serious discussion of military action against North
Korea.” Trump based his argument off of the only extended conversation he has had with Obama, an hour-and-a-
half-long discussion after Trump was elected president in November 2016. Trump’s version of that conversation
has changed over time -- “At first, he said that Mr. Obama told him that North Korea would be the new administra-
tion’s toughest foreign policy challenge ... . Only later did Mr. Trump add the supposed war discussion.” Neverthe-
less, this claim “has become part of Mr. Trump’s narrative in patting himself on the back for reaching out to North
Korea to make peace.” [The New York Times, 2/16/19]

February 25
FALSE: Correspondent Peter Doocy claimed the Green New Deal would require “tearing down every structure in
the United States so that it is eco-friendlier.”

PETER DOOCY (CORRESPONDENT): The cost of the Green New Deal is the one part of it that Democrats
seem to get defensive about. Sen. Cory Booker told me that it’s a lie when critics say that it might be too
expensive, but he and all the other 2020 Democrats are going to have a chance to go on the record with
their support because Mitch McConnell plans to bring the resolution up for a vote in the Senate sometime
very soon. Potentially in the next couple days.

ERIC SHAWN (GUEST CO-ANCHOR): Alright. And Peter, besides Sen. Booker, what are the other Democrats
saying about this?

DOOCY: That basically you have to spend money by tearing down every structure in the United States so
that it is eco-friendlier to save money and then, eventually, save the planet. [Fox News, America’s News-
room, 2/25/19]

FACT: The Green New Deal does not call for tearing down buildings but rather for upgrading them. The section
on buildings in the resolution text sets a goal of “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building
new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durabili-
ty.” [HR 109, 2/7/19]

February 26
FALSE: Dana Perino claimed “the Congressional Budget Office came out” with a study saying that the Green
New Deal could cost “between $53 trillion and $93 trillion.”

DANA PERINO: Let’s take another topic. And that’s of course it’s getting a lot of attention, this Green New
Deal, and the Congressional Budget Office came out with an eye-popping number, saying that it could cost
between $53 trillion and $93 trillion, which is a number that sounds so fantastical that Austin Powers would
have come up with it. [Fox News, Daily Briefing with Dana Perino, 2/26/19]
FACT: The flawed study was not conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, but by conservative think tank
American Action Forum, which has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. AAF’s president, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, is
the former director of the CBO, but the study is not connected to the office. The AAF study was later debunked.
The fact-checking project PolitiFact found its estimate that the Green New Deal would cost up to $93 trillion
untrustworthy, calling it “only about as strong as a clothespin in high wind.” Politico also determined that the $93
trillion figure was “bogus” and quoted Holtz-Eakin admitting that he had no idea how much it would cost to imple-
ment the Green New Deal. In reality, the Green New Deal resolution introduced by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey is just
a broad, 14-page outline of goals with no policy specifics, so determining a price tag is a fanciful exercise. [Media
Matters, 3/18/2019; PolitiFact, 3/12/2019; Politico, 3/10/2019]

February 27
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum said right-wing radio host Ben Shapiro is “right on with that assessment”
that Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony didn’t show much illegal behavior by Trump.

DANA PERINO (ANCHOR): I saw this tweet from Ben Shapiro, of course of The Ben Shapiro Show. He wrote
this: “Cohen’s testimony falls into three buckets for Trump: (1) illegality; (2) embarrassing for Trump; and (3)
stupid hilarity. There’s not much in bucket (1), there’s a lot in bucket (2), and there’s a fair amount in bucket
(3).” Which is really more of a PR thing.

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): I think Ben, as he often is, is right on here with that assessment, Dana.
When you look at the illegality issue, you have Michael Cohen saying all of these things that don’t line up.
For example, that the president was working on this hotel project which was going to bring in hundreds
of millions of dollars and be the biggest hotel property in all of Europe. And he says, “That was always the
main goal and he didn’t think he was going to win the election, and that’s why we all had to be on the same
page on this.” And then in the next breath, he’s saying that he would do absolutely anything to win. So none
of these things really sort of line up in terms of what Michael Cohen was going after. In terms of the hilar-
ity, number three, you have to go back to some of the performances that we’re watching on behalf of the
members of Congress

You know, you watch some of what happens here, and the idea that this is a question and answer session
is preposterous. You see a lot of grandstanding, and moments where Michael Cohen says, “Can I please an-
swer your question?” And he’s then told by the member of Congress, “No, I’m sorry, this is my time. My time
to grandstand.” Which really does raise a lot of questions about, really, just what value exists in this back
and forth.

You know, and in terms of the embarrassing part, some of the elements of this one, I read through the
statement this morning, reminded me of back during the campaign, when [Sen.] Mitt Romney stood up and
went through, you know, the Trump steaks and the Trump water and all of the lists of errors and con-man
activities and character issues that he saw in President Trump. Michael Cohen who, as you guys point out,
we have all been on the other end of the wrath of it at one time or another, used to defend him so vocifer-
ously. And today he laid out this con-man racist that he would never have recognized a couple of years ago.
[Fox News, Shepard Smith Reporting, 2/27/2019]

FACT: MacCallum failed to mention that the money Cohen spent to pay off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal
could have been illegal. Cohen told Congress that he had received multiple payments from the president to reim-
burse him for paying off women with whom Trump had affairs. According to Lawfare, “Technically speaking, under
federal election law, the balance Trump owed Cohen at any given time could constitute an ongoing illegal contri-
bution by Cohen.” Former Federal Elections Commission general counsel Lawrence Noble also told The Washing-
ton Post that the testimony “directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations.” [Lawfare,
2/27/19; The Washington Post, 2/27/19]

February 28
FALSE: Anchor Sandra Smith claimed the Congressional Budget Office released a study saying the Green New
Deal would cost $93 trillion.

SANDRA SMITH (ANCHOR): The Green New Deal, all the rage on the left, but a new study finds that it
comes with a staggering price tag. The plan’s estimated cost as much as $93 trillion. That breaks down to
$600,000 per household. Those are some big numbers.

This is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that did a study on this and came up with those num-
bers: $93 trillion, $600,000 per household. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 2/28/2019]

FACT: The study was not conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), but by conservative think tank
American Action Forum, which has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. AAF’s president, Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
is the former director of the CBO, but the study is not connected to the office. The AAF study was later debunked,
with fact-checking project PolitiFact finding that its $93 trillion figure was untrustworthy and calling it “only about
as strong as a clothespin in high wind.” Politico also determined that the $93 trillion figure was “bogus,” and quoted
Holtz-Eakin admitting that he had no idea how much it would cost to implement the Green New Deal. [Media Mat-
ters, 3/18/2019; PolitiFact, 3/12/2019; Politico, 3/10/2019]
March

Maria Bartiromo
Sunday Morning Futures &
Mornings with Maria on Fox News
 March 1
FALSE: Anchor Jon Scott said the IRS was “essentially weaponized and used against” the tea party movement.

JON SCOTT(ANCHOR): One of the results of the establishment of the tea party movement was that you won
the attention of the IRS under the Obama administration. The IRS was essentially weaponized and used
against individual members of the tea party organization. Now, that’s against the law and it has been admit-
ted as such, but how many of those IRS officials have gone to jail? [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 3/1/19]

FACT: In 2013, accusations that the IRS was specifically targeting conservative groups were debunked after it
was revealed that progressive groups had similarly been singled out for review. The allegations revolved around
a Treasury Department inspector general investigation which found that the IRS gave additional scrutiny to groups
that had words like “tea party” in their names. However, it was later revealed that the investigation focused solely
on conservative groups because Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) asked the IG “to narrowly focus on tea party organiza-
tions,” and that the IRS had used similar methods to single out some progressive groups for further review. [Media
Matters, 6/26/13]

March 2
FALSE: Correspondent Griff Jenkins claimed that after accusations of “collusion didn’t work,” Democrats de-
cided to go after President Donald Trump’s “finances and his business dealings.”

GRIFF JENKINS ( CORRESPONDENT): I cover what happens on Capitol Hill, and one of the things that’s
about to take off and one of the things that is going to be a big story you are going to hear about in the
coming weeks and months is going to be the House Democrats now in charge trying to go after -- collusion
didn’t work, so now they are going to go after President Trump’s finances and his business dealings. [Fox
News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 3/2/19]

FACT: Democrats have been urging examination of Trump’s finances and business dealings for years. Addition-
ally, further evidence of potentially illegal financial and business misconduct has emerged since Trump took office,
including a report that he has a long history of tax evasion. [CNN, 2/26/18; NPR, 7/25/17; The New York Times,
10/2/18]

March 3
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo argued that investigators took British former intelligence agent Christopher
Steele’s dossier to court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that they could “spy on the Trump
campaign.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): They went to the FISA Court and they said, “Look, we have this dirty dossier
and that’s the reason that we’re going to spy on the Trump campaign,” essentially. [Fox News, Sunday Morn-
ing Futures with Maria Bartiromo, 3/3/19]

FACT: The material in the dossier was raw intelligence, much of which is supported and none of which is dis-
proven by publicly available information. As Lawfare noted, “The dossier is a collection of raw intelligence” that
“Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized. … The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a fin-
ished intelligence product.” While much of the material in the dossier “remains uncorroborated,” a great deal of
publicly available information “buttress[es] some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The
dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.” [Lawfare, 12/14/18]

FACT: The only known FISA warrants issued to monitor anyone associated with the Trump campaign were for
Carter Page, and the application for that warrant was not submitted until a month after he left the campaign.
As The Washington Post explained, “On Sept. 26, 2016, Page announced he had resigned from the Trump campaign.
About a month later, on Oct. 21, as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the election, the FBI made
an initial application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor Page’s conversations. The
FISA warrant was approved and then renewed three times for 90-day increments by several judges.” [The Washing-
ton Post, 5/6/19]

March 4
FALSE: Guest anchor Charles Payne claimed the Green New Deal would cost $100 trillion and argued that the
plan is an effort to “clean up an issue that doesn’t even emanate from this country.”

CHARLES PAYNE (GUEST ANCHOR): Speaking of which, Andrew, since the Paris Accord, you know, CO2
emissions have continued to go up, particularly in places like China and India. I mean, is it folly to even say,
even if this was considered -- if you thought that this was the ultimate problem, isn’t it folly to think that
the American taxpayer should spend $100 trillion over 10 years to try to clean up an issue that doesn’t even
emanate from this country? [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 3/4/19]

FACT: The $100 trillion number comes from an employee at a think tank backed by fossil fuel companies and
investors, and the employee openly admits he has “no idea” how much key components of the deal would cost.
Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, attempted to put a price tag on the Green New Deal in a
Twitter thread. He admitted in the thread that most of the plan “cannot even be costed out,” but he still decided to
guess that the cost “must be heading towards $100 trillion.” This guess was then adopted by right-wing media as
a real cost estimate. In reality, the Green New Deal resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is just a broad, 14-page outline of goals with no policy specifics, so determining a price
tag is a fanciful exercise.

Payne’s assertion that the climate crisis hasn’t been caused by the United States is also misleading. The U.S. has
emitted far more carbon dioxide since 1750 than any other country. The U.S. is now the second-largest annual
emitter in the world, behind only China -- and U.S. carbon emissions actually increased in 2018, following years of
modest decline. [Energy and Policy Institute, 3/14/19; The Washington Post, 3/21/19, 1/8/19; Twitter, 2/8/19; Media
Matters, 3/18/19; Carbon Brief, 4/23/19; Vox, 1/9/19]

March 5
FALSE: Anchor Sandra Smith parroted a highly misleading claim that “Medicare for All” would cost $33 trillion in
its first 10 years.

SANDRA SMITH (ANCHOR): He goes on to write, “First, patients would have to transition,” insurance com-
panies would have to transition, hospitals, the American people, doctors would have to transition. And then
there’s the cost. The Sanders plan would increase federal funding by about $33 trillion it’s estimated over
its first 10 years. Compare that with the CBO’s -- the Congressional Budget Office -- projection for the entire
2019 fiscal year budget: $4 trillion. This is unbelievable sums of money that we are talking about here. [Fox
News, America’s Newsroom, 3/5/19]

FACT: The study that produced the $33 trillion figure actually shows that over time, Sanders’ plan would save
trillions of dollars. The $33 trillion figure comes from a report issued by libertarian think tank the Mercatus Center.
Conservatives initially seized on the study to argue that Sanders’ plan was too expensive, but an analysis of the
data it used determined that the plan would actually save money in the long term. As The Washington Post ex-
plained, “On its current trajectory, the United States is projected to spend $7.65 trillion annually on health care by
2031, according to the Mercatus study. That number would drop to $7.35 trillion if Sanders’s plan were implement-
ed, the study found. Over time, that adds up to a net savings of about $2.1 trillion.” So, while the government would
spend more, overall health care spending would decrease. [The Washington Post, 7/31/19; The New York Times,
3/4/19]
 March 6
FALSE: Anchor Dana Perino described voter suppression as a “strain of thought” on the left.

DANA PERINO (ANCHOR): There is a strain of thought, I guess, on the left. I hear it come up over and over
again. But it doesn’t seem to like penetrate the mainstream, they just say there is voter suppression. [Fox
News, The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino, 3/6/19]

FACT: Republicans have repeatedly admitted that the voting laws they favor are intended to suppress the vote.
Various Republicans have openly admitted to attempting to suppress the vote. For example, as reported in The
New York Times, a former aide to a Wisconsin Republican legislator said:

I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being
discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the
prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials plan-
ning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own
chances to hang onto power.

The aide quit his job and left the party because of such discussions. An article at The Daily Beast documenting
admissions by Republicans that voter ID laws are meant to suppress Democratic voting contained many more ex-
amples, including former Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer admitting that the goal of the state’s voter ID law was to
suppress early voting by Democrats. In 2016, the North Carolina GOP issued a press release saying it was “encour-
aging” that African American early voting was down in the state following years of attempts by the state GOP party
to suppress voting on explicitly racial lines. [The New York Times, 9/16/16, The Daily Beast, 8/23/13, 11/7/16]

March 7
FALSE: Chief political anchor Bret Baier said Fox News has “a long track record of being tough but fair in de-
bates.”

SANDRA SMITH (ANCHOR): I’ve got to ask you about the DNC rejecting Fox News as a debate host for 2020.
They are citing ties to the president. What more can you tell us this morning?

BRET BAIER (CHIEF POLITICAL ANCHOR): Well, it’s their decision. It’s disappointing, obviously. We have
a long track record of being tough but fair in debates. Chris Wallace was obviously lauded for his general
election debate last cycle. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 3/7/19]

FACT: Fox News does not have a record of being “fair” in hosting debates -- in fact, Trump was leaked questions
for one Fox News debate. In 2015, then-Fox News President Roger Ailes gave the Trump campaign advance in-
formation about a question then-anchor Megyn Kelly would ask, according to reporting by The New Yorker’s Jane
Mayer. Mayer’s reporting also showed that Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch wanted to play favorites in terms of how
moderators questioned certain candidates. [The New Yorker, 3/4/19]

March 8
FALSE: Anchor David Asman said the recovery following the 2008 financial crisis began only when Trump “re-
leased the animal spirits” of the economy.

DAVID ASMAN (ANCHOR): A lot of people say, “You know, it’s been 10 years since the low point,” but remem-
ber, we had the worst recovery ever. President Obama, God love him, he did some awful things with regard
to economic policy -- when you’re in the midst of a recession, to come out of it, a president usually lowers
tax rates and lowers regulations, he did exactly the opposite. He increased regulations tremendously, he
increased the tax rates which made it harder for businesses to do business and it made it less profitable for
them to do business. So the recovery really hasn’t been for 10 years. It wasn’t until Donald Trump came in,
 released the animal spirits, if you will, of the economy by lowering tax rates, dramatically lowering regula-
tions. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 3/8/19]

FACT: The success of the economy during the early Trump presidency was inherited from Obama. According to
an NBC fact check of Trump’s claims about the economy, the continued growth seen early in Trump’s presidency
can be attributed to Obama. As the fact check explained:

The economy was, however, struggling when Obama took office in 2009. He inherited a dismal economy in
the middle of a recession that lasted 18 months, facing what many feared would be a depression, and was
able to turn it around in the first years of his presidency. The U.S. is now its 10th year of economic growth,
and in its longest period of growth with 95 straight months of job creation. The bulk of that decade of
growth was under Obama’s presidency, and can fairly be credited to him.

Contrary to Asman’s claims, NBC News found the evidence on Trump’s economic policies to be mixed, writing, “Now
in the second year of his presidency, he has passed a major tax bill and rolled back a significant number of regula-
tions, giving the economy another injection of capital — though economists disagree on the how much the tax cuts
will really benefit the larger economy and whether it will have lasting effects to the economy.” [NBC News, 9/10/18]

March 9
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said, “House Democrats already seem to be, at least, encourag-
ing illegal immigrants to vote” through voting and campaign finance reform bill HR 1.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): House Democrats already seem to be, at least, en-
couraging illegal immigrants to vote. Because Republicans were trying to crack down on that, Democrats
blocked the effort.

PETE HEGSETH (HOST): The Democrats in the House just passed HR 1. It’s a bill they believe would curb
money in politics. Here’s some of the things from HR 1: aiming to curb money in politics; easier to vote;
automatic registration for 18-year-olds; public financing for congressional campaigns; presidential candi-
dates have to provide their tax returns, wonder what that’s about; Election Day a national holiday, an idea I
actually support if you get rid of early voting, but they don’t want to do that, so.

...

HENRY: Republicans said, “Hey, you want to do all these things, OK, we get it, Democrats are in charge of
the House now.” But Republicans had a point of view that said, “If you really want to make sure that the right
people are voting, people who actually have a legal right to vote, right, you should make sure and have a
measure in there that says illegal immigrants clearly can’t vote. Because there is concern about whether
they are voting or not.” Well guess what, the House shot that GOP motion down 228 to 197. So basically said,
“No, we don’t want to include a provision that make sure that illegal immigrants don’t vote.” [Fox News, Fox
& Friends Weekend, 3/9/19]

FACT: It is already illegal for undocumented immigrants to vote in federal elections. HR 1 has nothing to do with
allowing undocumented immigrants to vote, so Democrats voted down a stunt GOP motion that attempted to
raise that issue. The motion Henry referenced was introduced by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) during debate over HR
1 and read in part, “It is the sense of Congress that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the fran-
chise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.” PolitiFact pointed out: “The United States already
has a law that prevents noncitizens from casting a ballot for president or other federal offices. HR 1 doesn’t change
that law — and HR 1 doesn’t call for extending the right to vote to noncitizens.” [Politifact, 3/13/19]
 March 10
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said Trump was responsible for NATO members paying in-
creased “dues.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): I sat down recently with a former high official of the
Obama administration I used to cover. And I asked, “OK, I know you don’t like President Trump, but is there
anything he’s done that you think is valuable? That you would say, ‘OK, he really did something good.’” And
this person said, “He got more from the NATO allies, I wish we had done more of that.” And I thought it was
interesting because even Obama people will admit -- and they always criticize it, they say, “Oh this America
First thing doesn’t work.” But the president did the same thing with NATO, and everyone laughed at him,
and yet we’re getting more and more dues paying from the other countries. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Week-
end, 3/10/19]

FACT: NATO countries have not committed to paying more than they already had promised, and there are no
NATO “dues.” Henry falsely said that more countries are paying their “dues” to NATO. No such dues exist. Instead,
NATO countries have agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. Some countries have already reached
this target, while others have not. During a July 2018 summit, NATO countries reaffirmed their commitment to
reaching the 2% target, after which Trump falsely claimed that payments had increased. The New York Times ex-
plained:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization members have not agreed to give the alliance more money, as Mr.
Trump’s comment about “raising vast amounts of money” would suggest.

Rather, each NATO member pledged in 2014 to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on its own
defense each year by 2024. During the summit meeting in Brussels last week, members reaffirmed their
commitment to that pledge. [NPR, 7/11/18, The New York Times, 7/17/18]

March 11
FALSE: Correspondent Trace Gallagher said Social Security disability fraud is a “significant problem” and that
investigators think more than a quarter of payments go to people committing fraud.

TRACE GALLAGHER (CORRESPONDENT): It’s $11 billion a month in these disability benefits, $3-plus billion
of that money we think is fraudulent, or a lot of investigators think is fraudulent. So this is a significant
problem. [Fox News, Shepard Smith Reporting, 3/11/19]

FACT: Social Security disability fraud is very rare. In an article about a Trump administration proposal to increase
social media monitoring to uncover cases of fraud, Reuters reported, “Program statistics do not support the alle-
gation that SSDI is riddled with fraud and abuse.” Reuters notes that in fiscal year 2018, the government received
“$98 million in recoveries, fines, settlements/judgments, and restitution as a result of Social Security fraud investi-
gations,” but the Social Security Administration paid out nearly $200 billion a year. The Reuters articled added that
“SSA data shows that the rate of overpayments for all its programs was well under 1 percent of benefit payouts in
each of the last three fiscal years - and not all improper payments are fraud. More often, overpayments occur due
to administrative delays at the SSA in making adjustments to benefit amounts due to errors and paperwork sna-
fus.” [Reuters, 3/29/19]

March 12
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner agreed with White House press secretary Sarah Sanders’ assertion that Demo-
crats won’t support Trump’s budget simply because it comes from him: “They don’t like the messenger.”

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): So the president is looking at cutting some areas. What’s the bottom line
with this new budget proposal with some Democrats saying it’s a nonstarter?
 SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS (WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY): I think it’s sad that Democrats think
that it’s a nonstarter to try to get our fiscal house in order. The president has put forward a proposal that
would help us balance the budget in 15 years, it also cuts nondefense spending by $2.7 trillion --

FAULKNER: Why don’t Democrats want to do that? Are they telling you?

SANDERS: This is progress. And frankly, it is sad that Democrats don’t want to balance the budget. The
idea that they think that they can spend themselves out of the problems that we have is frankly just laugh-
able. And we’ve got to start looking at ways to rein in the spending, increase growth, and that’s the stuff
that you will see reflected in the president’s policies --

FAULKNER: I thought that those were bipartisan issues.

SANDERS: I did too. I didn’t know that they were no longer bipartisan. I think it’s not that they don’t agree
with the policy, I think it’s they don’t agree with the president.

FAULKNER: They don’t like the messenger.

SANDERS: They care more about beating up this president than they do helping people in this country.
[Fox News, Outnumbered Overtime, 3/12/19]

FACT: Democrats opposed the president’s budget proposal because it slashed the social safety net and imper-
iled poor people. The $4.7 trillion proposed budget, which was revealed by the administration on March 11, would
have cut $845 billion from Medicare and $1.5 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years. It also would have gutted other
social services like food stamps and student loans. Congressional Democrats denounced the proposed Trump
budget because of the cuts, calling them “malicious” and arguing they were “intended to do harm.” [Vox, 3/11/19;
Reuters, 3/12/19]

March 13
FALSE: Anchor Bill Hemmer said the Trump/Russia investigation began with “the original sin” of the “dirty dos-
sier.”

BILL HEMMER (ANCHOR): What’s interesting is the newly discovered documents that Lisa Page gave under
closed-door testimony with Republicans in the House and -- they’re related in a significant way if you want
to tie the original sin to the dirty dossier and on and on it went from there. John Ratcliffe, tweet number
three and four, guys. Ratcliffe is a Republican from Texas, steeped in law. He says this: “Lisa Page con-
firmed to me under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clin-
ton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.” He continues, next one, number four:
“The newly released transcripts of my interview with Lisa Page indicate that Peter Strzok had no evidence
of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia prior to the launch of the FBI and special counsel
investigations into the matter.”

Are we about to find out that there was no hard evidence or hard facts from the very beginning? And if so,
how do you characterize it two and a half years later? [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 3/13/19]

FACT: The Russia investigation started amid numerous reports of suspicious contacts between Russians
and Trump associates when Australian government officials informed the FBI that a Trump adviser knew of
hacked Democratic emails. According to The Washington Post, on April 26, 2016, a Russia-linked professor told
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “thousands of emails” containing
damaging information on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In May 2016, Papadopoulos told Aus-
tralian diplomat Alexander Downer what he knew about Russia’s possession of Clinton’s emails. In July 2016, when
WikiLeaks first began releasing the emails, Australian government officials informed the FBI about the conver-
sation between Downer and Papadopoulos, leading the FBI to open the counterintelligence investigation into the
Trump campaign known as “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31.

In addition, as ABC reported, “The FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on [Trump campaign adviser
Carter] Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016,” due to his history of
suspicious contacts with Russian officials dating back to 2013. The FBI sent an informant to speak with Page and
Papadopoulos “only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the
campaign,” according to The New York Times. Various other Trump campaign associates also had links to Russian
officials, including foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, who left
the campaign in August 2016 after reporting suggested that “he received millions in illicit payments from political
actors in Ukraine.” [The Washington Post, 9/19/18; The New York Times, 5/18/18; ABC News, 8/18/18]

March 14
FALSE: Anchor Sandra Smith said Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke “called law enforcement
‘the new Jim Crow.’”

SANDRA SMITH (ANCHOR): To further set this up, here are some of O’Rourke’s policy positions. Mark, I know
you mentioned a few, Hugo. Here they are: anti-border wall, voted against ICE, voted against “Kate’s Law,”
voted against Trump tax cuts, supports single-payer health care, voted against sanctioning Iran, called law
enforcement “the new Jim Crow.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 4/14/19]

FACT: The claim originated with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and is a misleading simplification of comments O’Rourke
made about the racial discrimination that is found throughout the entire criminal justice system. During a town
hall, O’Rourke spoke at length about the criminal justice system, describing the issue of people being suspected,
searched, stopped, shot, and sent to jail because of their skin color as “why some have called this — I think it’s an
apt description— the new Jim Crow.” [Media Matters, 4/14/19; NBC News, 9/21/16]

March 15
FALSE: Anchor Dagen McDowell suggested that Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to fund a wall that
Congress won’t pay for is the same as Obama’s use of executive orders.

DAGEN MCDOWELL (ANCHOR): It will get tied up in the courts. I think that there were four additional states
that signed on to this lawsuit challenging the emergency order, bringing it to 20. You could get an emergen-
cy injunction that stops this in its tracks for the time being. But, listen, Juan doesn’t recognize what’s going
on here with the Republicans because they’re not being hypocritical, unlike the Democrats, unlike [Sen.]
Chuck Schumer and [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi, who basically just sat back and let President Obama violate the
separation of powers. Let’s go through the list. As The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote: “A blank
check on recess appointments, environmental and financial regulations, Obamacare spending without
appropriations, work permits for illegal immigrants and more all rebuked by the court system.”

JUAN WILLIAMS (HOST): So that’s why you have --

MCDOWELL: That’s why -- at least the Republicans who voted against the president are voting based on
their concern that the Democrats will then turn around and abuse emergency power.

WILLIAMS: Well that’s my point to you. So that what you are saying is he shouldn’t be doing it.

MCDOWELL: Well where were you guys when Obama was doing this over and over and over and over again?
[Fox News, The Five, 03/15/19]

FACT: Trump’s national emergency declaration is unprecedented and Obama never did anything like it. Elizabeth
Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice explained to The Washington Post that “unlike other executive orders,
one that declares a national emergency unlocks the powers contained in more than 100 other laws.” While Obama
did use executive orders to declare national emergencies during his tenure, he used them in similar ways to other
presidents. As NPR notes, however, Trump’s emergency declaration is “categorically different” from those of pre-
vious presidents, Obama included, in that his national emergency declaration “is using his power to fund a border
wall far bigger and more expensive than Congress was willing to pay for.” [The Washington Post, 1/12/19; NPR,
2/15/19]

March 16
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said the Russia investigation may have begun under “murky
circumstances to say the least.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): In the meantime, there continue to be revelations about
how this entire Russia investigation started including new information about an aide to the late Sen. John
McCain passing on that dossier at the beginning of the probe, sharing it around. Raising some new ques-
tions.

What do you make of what I said about this aide to the late Sen. John McCain sharing the dossier around
but also the revelations we saw this week, various testimony shared with former FBI officials like Lisa Page
and Peter Strzok that suggest that this entire investigation started under some murky circumstances to
say the least? [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 3/16/19]

FACT: The Russia investigation started amid numerous reports of suspicious contacts between Russians
and Trump associates when Australian government officials informed the FBI that a Trump adviser knew of
hacked Democratic emails. According to The Washington Post, on April 26, 2016, a Russia-linked professor told
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “thousands of emails” containing
damaging information on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In May 2016, Papadopoulos told Aus-
tralian diplomat Alexander Downer what he knew about Russia’s possession of Clinton’s emails. In July 2016, when
WikiLeaks first began releasing the emails, Australian government officials informed the FBI about the conver-
sation between Downer and Papadopoulos, leading the FBI to open the counterintelligence investigation into the
Trump campaign known as “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31.

In addition, as ABC reported, “The FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on [Trump campaign adviser
Carter] Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016,” due to his history of
suspicious contacts with Russian officials dating back to 2013. The FBI sent an informant to speak with Page and
Papadopoulos “only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the
campaign,” according to The New York Times. Various other Trump campaign associates also had links to Russian
officials, including foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, who left
the campaign in August 2016 after reporting suggested that “he received millions in illicit payments from political
actors in Ukraine.” [The Washington Post, 9/19/18; The New York Times, 5/18/18; ABC News, 8/18/18]

March 17
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo suggested that Democrats don’t support border security because they didn’t
vote for three specific proposals.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): Why hasn’t this been dealt with before? I mean, when we have your col-
leagues on the left on, they continue to say that they are for border security and yet they didn’t vote for
“Kate’s Law,” they didn’t vote for an end to sanctuary cities, they didn’t vote for the wall. So obviously their
votes do not correspond with what they’re saying, but I’m just trying -- having a hard time understanding
why -- if this is such an incredible emergency as these numbers bear out -- why nothing has been done
 about this before. [Fox Business Network, Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, 3/17/19]

FACT: Democrats offered a border security proposal just weeks before Bartiromo made the claim. Democrats’
proposal, which was revealed in February, included hiring 1,000 new U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers;
implementing “new imaging technology at land ports of entry to scan for drugs, weapons, and contraband”; adding
“increased resources and technology at mail-processing facilities to intercept opioids and fentanyl”; and expand-
ing “Air and Marine Operations on the border and in US waters.” The proposal, which described the treatment of
migrants in U.S. detention as a “humanitarian crisis” and “the only real crisis at the border,” would also involve the
“bolstering of CBP’s resources in handling detained migrants apprehended at the border.” [Media Matters, 2/4/19]

March 18
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum misled about terror statistics, suggesting that “no single group,” including
right-wing extremists, is primarily responsible for terror incidents.

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): Let’s put up some of the numbers that were published this morning that
take a look at the terror incidents in the United States, domestic terror incidents, that were perpetrated
by these groups. And this is the way that they did it. I believe this is Washington Post, right guys? OK, this
is from The Washington Post. So they say, they attribute six deaths in 2017 to left-wing groups, 11 deaths to
right-wing groups, 16 deaths to Islamic extremists, and “other/unknown” is the highest in the group at 62,
because this is the last year they tracked these numbers and that includes the Las Vegas massacre, the
horrific massacre that happened in Las Vegas. But you know, when you look at it that way, at least in that
one year, and the numbers swing around from time to time. It looks like there’s no single group that is sort
of dominating this issue and also that the numbers are relatively low. We’d love to see zero obviously across
the board here. [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 3/18/19]

FACT: According to the Washington Post article MacCallum was citing, “Over the past decade, attackers mo-
tivated by right-wing political ideologies have committed dozens of shootings, bombings and other acts of
violence, far more than any other category of domestic extremist.” During the segment, MacCallum discussed
statistics from a Washington Post article showing the number of people killed in terrorist incidents where the per-
petrator can be connected to various ideologies. However, she ignored other data from the article which tracked
the number of terrorist incidents overall and which did show a marked increase in right-wing terrorism as well as a
line noting the preponderance of right-wing terror. [The Washington Post, 11/25/18; Twitter, 3/19/19; The Atlantic,
1/28/19]

March 19
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum said Brazil’s past two presidents have been “very socialist” and “economical-
ly, it has not been good for the country” to prop up far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who was visiting
the United States at the time.

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): “For the first time in a while, a pro-America Brazilian president arrives in
D.C.” -- that’s Bolsonaro tweeting on his arrival to Washington.

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): Yeah, I mean, the past two presidents in Brazil have been very socialist
in their orientation. Economically, it has not been good for the country. [Fox News, Outnumbered Overtime,
3/19/19]

FACT: Bolsonaro’s predecessor was a member of a centrist party, not a socialist. Michel Temer was Brazil’s pres-
ident prior to Bolsonaro’s election in 2018. Temer was affiliated with the Brazilian Democratic Movement, a centrist
party. He did not run for reelection in 2018, but according to The Associated Press, he said at the time that “he sees
former Sao Paulo Gov. Geraldo Alckmin of the right-leaning Brazilian Social Democracy Party as a candidate who
would carry on with his work.” While Temer was president, his actions were condemned by the Democratic Social-
ists of America, which issued a September 2018 statement criticizing “the Temer government’s attacks on Brazilian
democracy as part of a larger attack by the Latin American right.” [The Associated Press, 8/16/18; Democratic
Socialists of America, 9/10/18]

March 20
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said
that she wants to “prosecute President Trump.”

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): So Kamala Harris, moving her way up to the front of the pack for Democrat-
ic candidates, is also a senator from the largest state in the union, and that’s California, and she wants to
prosecute President Trump. That’s a lot. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 3/20/19]

FACT: Harris actually said that on the campaign trail she will “prosecute the case against this administration
and this president.” Harris said, “I also believe that what voters are going to want is … someone who has the
proven ability to prosecute the case against this administration and this president. … And that is going to be about
having an ability and a proven ability to be able to articulate the evidence that makes the case for why we need new
leadership in this country.” [The Daily Beast, 3/20/19]

March 21
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) “is
calling for expanding economic resources to illegal immigrants.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): Welcome back, turning to border security. Border Patrol announcing it has
had to release hundreds of migrants detained at the U.S.-Mexico border because of overcrowding. It is run-
ning out of room at detention facilities, literally. This coming as Democratic presidential hopeful New York
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is calling for expanding economic resources to illegal immigrants. Watch.

[CLIP]

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): If you are in this country now, you must have the right to pay into Social
Security, to pay your taxes, to pay into the local school system, and to have a pathway to citizenship. That
must happen.

[END CLIP] [Fox Business Network, Mornings with Maria, 3/21/19]

FACT: Bartiromo edited out the beginning of Gillibrand’s statement that showed she was calling for comprehen-
sive immigration reform. Gillibrand was actually talking about creating a pathway to legal status and citizenship
for immigrants who currently pay billions in taxes without receiving Social Security or other benefits. [Market-
place, 1/28/19; Media Matters, 3/22/19]

March 22
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo said former Trump aide Carter Page was wiretapped based on “flimsy evi-
dence” from the Steele dossier.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): This dossier keeps coming up and that’s one of the reasons for the presi-
dent’s upset with the late John McCain obviously. Do you think we are going to see any accountability with
all of this?
 ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI (FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR): Accountability as relates
to the dossier? Or what the president is doing in terms of --

BARTIROMO: Yeah, accountability with the fact that the dossier was given to the FBI and they had flimsy
evidence to actually wiretap an American citizen. [Fox Business Network, Mornings with Maria, 3/22/19]

FACT: The wiretap was granted by a judge based on evidence beyond what was contained in the dossier. The
Obama and Trump administrations both obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretaps of Trump cam-
paign adviser Carter Page. A common but false right-wing claim is that the wiretap warrant was approved solely on
the basis of information about Page contained in a dossier provided to the FBI by former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele. In fact, documents released about the wiretap application showed that the dossier provided
only some of the information in support of the warrant, and that Page was of interest to the FBI as early as 2013.
[PolitiFact, 9/11/18]

March 23
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said the Steele dossier set in motion events leading to the spe-
cial counsel investigation.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Instead, what you have were a whole bunch of indict-
ments about bank fraud, tax fraud, and all the rest. Important? Certainly things that should not be laughed
away or swept under the carpet in terms of Paul Manafort and others. But none of those indictments have
to do with collusion or conspiracy where this all started. Where did it start? It started with that dossier
which was paid for by the Clinton campaign, paid for by the DNC, unverified information about that man on
the right [President Donald Trump]. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Saturday, 3/23/19]

FACT: The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation that led to the special counsel investigation started weeks
before the dossier was given to the FBI. FactCheck.org debunked a similar claim, made by a Republican congress-
man, concluding that the dossier did not start the investigation because “competing memos from the Republicans
and the Democrats on the House intelligence committee both say that information about George Papadopoulos, a
Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had prompted the FBI investigation in July 2016.” [FactCheck.org, 3/27/17]

March 24
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed that the Green New Deal would cost $94 trillion.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): I know that sometimes you vote alongside [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Does it bother you that the idea that you can get rid of fossil fuels in 10 years doesn’t make sense and that it
would cost upwards of $94 trillion? [Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, 3/24/19]

FACT: The claim the Green New Deal would cost $94 trillion is baseless and comes from a partisan think tank.
The figure originated from a deeply flawed analysis of the Green New Deal produced by the American Action Forum
(AAF), a conservative think tank, which actually estimated that it would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion.
Politico determined that the $93 trillion figure was “bogus” and quoted the lead author of the AAF analysis, Douglas
Holtz-Eakin, admitting that he had no idea how much it would cost to implement the Green New Deal. PolitiFact
called the estimate “only about as strong as a clothespin in high wind.” [Politico, 3/10/19; PolitiFact, 3/12/19; Media
Matters, 3/18/19]
 March 25
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum said the Trump-Russia investigation was started because of “a dossier and
an article that was written on Yahoo News.”

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): It’s clear that they weren’t doing what they were doing to President
Trump’s campaign to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that’s the question.

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): They didn’t have any probable cause or any intelligence to make them think
they should be looking at it.

MACCALLUM: And the probable cause apparently came from the dossier and an article that was written on
Yahoo News. [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 3/25/19]

FACT: The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation that led to the special counsel investigation started weeks
before the dossier was given to the FBI. FactCheck.org previously debunked a similar claim, made by a Repub-
lican congressman, concluding that the dossier did not start the investigation because “competing memos from
the Republicans and the Democrats on the House intelligence committee both say that information about George
Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had prompted the FBI investigation in July 2016.” [Fact-
Check.org, 3/27/17]

March 26
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed Democrats “have gotten” Mueller’s findings “through that four-page
report from the AG.”

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): Could you understand though that if [the full Mueller report] doesn’t come
-- according to polling, it looks like it’s time for some Americans, they say, to move on from this. Even Dem-
ocrats have said, “When we get the Mueller findings,” which you have gotten through that four-page report
from the AG, that you would move on. I don’t understand what you’re still pressing for. [Fox News, Outnum-
bered Overtime, 3/26/19]

FACT: Mueller has expressed concerns about Attorney General William Barr’s memo, saying it “did not fully
capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s findings. At the time the memo was first released, it was
clear that Barr left out a lot of information. We now know that Mueller wrote to him twice to express concerns that
Barr’s memo “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s findings. [Vox, 3/29/19, 4/20/19]

March 27
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed “illegal crossings are surging to record levels” at the southern U.S. bor-
der.

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): Developing this hour on America’s southern border: Illegal crossings are
surging to record levels. I’m Harris Faulkner, you’re watching Outnumbered Overtime. The Border Patrol is
warning of an unprecedented crisis, putting the agency at a breaking point with thousands of undocument-
ed immigrants illegally flooding across the border this week alone. U.S. detention centers are wilting under
the pressure of the numbers of people. We are told we could see people stopped at the border reaching
1 million by the end of the year. That doubles last year’s numbers. [Fox News, Outnumbered Overtime,
3/27/19]

FACT: While current migrant crossings are at an 11-year high, “they’re still way below pre-recession levels.”
These numbers are not at a record high, as claimed by Faulkner. [Vox, 3/6/19]
 March 28
FALSE: Anchor Melissa Francis claimed “the bottom 50%” of income earners “are paying only 3% of the total
bill.”

MELISSA FRANCIS (ANCHOR): It’s interesting that you would ask that, because I did go and consult the IRS
and Bloomberg to go through those numbers. I didn’t find exactly what you said, but I found that the bot-
tom 50% pay 3% of the taxes. So for those -- it’s interesting, your perception that you’re paying too much
and that you want the rich to pay more. The bottom 50% are paying only 3% of the total bill. So in my mind,
I know the top 5% pay 55%. It’s just, it’s -- I understand that wealthy people make more money so they’re
paying more, and that’s how those ratios seem to not go together, but it just looks like -- I want everyone at
the top and the bottom, all the way through, to pay less taxes. Because I feel like the government’s totally
inefficient with our money. You give it back to people, they spend it, they invest it. They do -- it’s just, you
know, makes the economy bigger. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 3/28/19]

FACT: The 3% statistic refers only to income taxes, which account for just half of federal taxes. The federal gov-
ernment does not collect only the income tax. As The Intercept noted, “Just half of the taxes collected by the fed-
eral government come from the income tax. About a third come from payroll taxes — which fall much more heavily
on working people, since they’re largely levied only on the first $130,000 or so of earned income.” In addition to
federal taxes, there are also state and local taxes. “Some of these, such as sales taxes, are actually regressive —
i.e., the less money you make, the higher tax rate you have to pay.” [The Intercept, 4/13/19]

March 29
FALSE: Anchor Melissa Francis said Democrats don’t want to improve Obamacare.

MELISSA FRANCIS (ANCHOR): [Sen.] Mitch McConnell wants to harp on “Medicare for none,” which is what
their plan is. Everybody wants to talk about the failure of the other one’s plan, and the truth is it has all been
a failure. The president knows that what politicians want to do most in life is nothing. They want to sit there
and not a fix a damn thing. And he’s going -- because he’s going to force a crisis, once again, he’s going to
put politicians into a situation where they have to act. They have to sit down and do something.

KATIE PAVLICH (CONTRIBUTOR): The fact is that [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi is talking about protecting afford-
able health care. There is a big difference between insurance and health care. And the fact is that under
Obamacare, there has been very little health care and there has been a lot of expensive insurance. Whether
it’s through monthly premiums or deductibles, lack of doctors, doctors retiring en masse, having shortages
all over the country, and rural hospitals closing, which is a decrease in care for the majority of people.

FRANCIS: We all know every single piece of it is broken. And [Democrats] don’t want to fix it because it’s
good politically for them. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 3/29/19]

FACT: House Democrats had unveiled legislation to improve Obamacare just days earlier. The Chicago Tribune
reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled a bill on March 26 that would “make more middle-class
people eligible for subsidized health insurance” through Obamacare, “increasing aid for those with lower incomes
who already qualify,” and “fix[ing] a longstanding affordability problem for some consumers, known as the ‘family
glitch.’” The article also reported that the bill “would provide money to help insurers pay the bills of their costliest
patients and restore advertising and outreach budgets slashed by President Donald Trump’s administration, help-
ing to stabilize health insurance markets.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/26/19]
 March 30
FALSE: Anchor Arthel Neville claimed medical malpractice insurance premiums “are skyrocketing” to explain
why some doctors are going out of business.

ARTHEL NEVILLE (ANCHOR): Many doctors are shutting down their doors due to the corporatization of
health care and the exorbitant amount of malpractice insurance they would have to pay for, those pre-
miums are skyrocketing. What is the Democrats’ political, and frankly, Joel, their campaign counter to
this? Because they can’t just keep saying, “Well, we need to fix Obamacare.” How are they planning to do it,
specifically where the folks can understand what it is that they’re proposing? [Fox News, America’s News
Headquarters, 3/30/19]

FACT: Medical malpractice insurance premiums have actually been flat for the past decade. Forbes cited Medi-
cal Liability Monitor editor Mike Matray in an October 2018 article which explained that “medical malpractice in-
surance premiums have been decreasing or flat for more than a decade and malpractice claims frequency is at an
historic low.” Some of the factors responsible for these changes include medical liability reform laws signed up to
20 years ago in many states and plaintiffs shifting their focus to the pharmaceutical industry over the opioid crisis.
[Forbes, 10/10/18]

March 31
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed it would be “against the law” for Barr to release grand
jury materials to anyone.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): [Rep.] Eric Swalwell clinging, as you said, to the narrative
because they want to keep what has now become a false narrative alive. But I also -- you’ve got to call out the
journalist. Joy Reid there at MSNBC starts the question: “If the attorney general refuses to release an unre-
dacted version.” No one believes it’s sensible for the attorney general to release an unredacted version, the
whole report. There’s grand jury material in there. It’d be against the law to put that out there, we’ve heard
that again and again. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 3/31/19]

FACT: The attorney general redacted four types of material from the Mueller report. According to Lawfare,
there is no legal argument to bar all members of Congress from seeing three of those types, and there are ave-
nues that allow them to see the fourth. Barr redacted four types of information from the Mueller report provided
to Congress and the public: grand jury materials, material that could compromise sources and methods, material
related to ongoing investigations, and material related to peripheral third parties. In a letter, Barr informed the
chairs of the Senate and House judiciary committees that he would provide a “less-redacted” version of the Mueller
report -- revealing all but the material related to the grand jury -- only to the chairs and ranking members of those
committees and the “Gang of Eight” (the Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress, as well
as the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees). As Lawfare noted:

For the latter three categories of redacted information, there is no legal bar to the attorney general provid-
ing such material to members of Congress. Members routinely review classified information, and they can
review sensitive law enforcement related or personal information in a nonpublic setting.

The fourth category of redacted information, grand jury material, is subject to the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce-
dure. Although a recent D.C. circuit ruling “narrowed the grounds on which a court could release grand jury infor-
mation to the House judiciary committee,” according to Lawfare, there are ways that material could be released
to Congress, including through an order by the judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings. [Attorney General
William Barr, 4/18/19; Lawfare, 4/17/19]
April

Bill Hemmer
America’s Newsroom on Fox News
 April 1
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed the Green New Deal is “supposed to cost $94 trillion.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): [Democrats] did, however, propose a plan called the Green New Deal, which
is supposed to cost $94 trillion.[Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, 4/1/19]

FACT: The claim the Green New Deal would cost $94 trillion is baseless and comes from a partisan think tank.
The figure originated from a deeply flawed analysis of the Green New Deal produced by the American Action Forum
(AAF), a conservative think tank with fossil fuel ties, which actually estimated that it would cost between $51 trillion
and $93 trillion. Politico determined that the $93 trillion figure was “bogus” and quoted the lead author of the AAF
analysis, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, admitting that he had no idea how much it would cost to implement the Green New
Deal. PolitiFact called the estimate “only about as strong as a clothespin in high wind.” [Politico, 3/10/19; PolitiFact,
3/12/19; Media Matters, 3/18/19]

April 2
FALSE: Correspondent Trace Gallagher pushed claim that Google censors conservative viewpoints.

TRACE GALLAGHER (CORRESPONDENT): And remember that, for years, Google has been accused of cen-
soring conservative viewpoints and suppressing conservative policies, even reportedly going as far as to
debate whether it should bury conservative news outlets in the company’s search function. [Fox News, Fox
News @ Night, 4/2/19]

FACT: Quantitative data does not support claims that tech companies are censoring conservatives, which are
largely based on anecdotal situations that can be explained by technical reasons unrelated to bias or censor-
ship. As The Washington Post noted, “Experts have said there is no evidence that Facebook, Google and Twitter
have deliberately sought to limit the reach of Republicans.” In fact, many of the examples cited to argue that Goo-
gle or other tech companies censor conservatives can actually be explained by technical reasons unrelated to bias
or censorship, including anti-spam policies used on these platforms to combat inauthentic behavior or digital illit-
eracy on the part of users. For example, one conservative site complained of bias because autocomplete search
results on Google didn’t show that there had been no new indictments related to the special counsel’s Trump-Rus-
sia investigation, ignoring the platform’s policies against character denigration that avoid offering predictions
containing “indictment” next to a person’s name. [Media Matters, 4/10/19; The Washington Post, 4/10/19]

April 3
FALSE: Chief White House correspondent John Roberts claimed, “Studies have found the noise from wind tur-
bines can cause sleep disturbances and associated health problems.”

JOHN ROBERTS (CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT): Studies have found the noise from wind tur-
bines can cause sleep disturbances and associated health problems, but no association with cancer has
been found. When asked about the president’s comments today, the White House senior staff deflected.
[Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 4/3/19]

FACT: Reputable studies have found no consistent evidence that wind turbines cause health problems or sleep
disorders. A 2016 study by Health Canada found that health problems and sleep disorders often attributed to “wind
turbine syndrome” were not actually related to turbine noise. An Australian review from 2013 concluded that there
is “no consistent evidence” that wind turbine noise causes health problems, and that not enough evidence exists
to determine that turbine noise has an effect on sleep. Claims like the one by Roberts are often made on anti-wind
blogs and sites backed by the oil tycoon Koch brothers. [Energy and Policy Institute, 4/17/19; FactCheck.org,
9/11/18]
 April 4
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed Democrats “won’t adhere to” the findings of “the special counsel …
and the attorney general.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): This president is trying to do international deals in North Korea, in China,
and they’ve got the Democrats and the media driving this story, this narrative that never made sense.

So, first they won’t adhere to the results of the 2016 election. Now they won’t adhere to the results of the
special counsel, who was godly in their minds just six months ago, and the attorney general. [Fox Business,
Mornings with Maria, 4/4/19]

FACT: Calling for all of the information in the special counsel report to be released does not constitute refusal
to adhere to the report’s results. Additionally, as Slate pointed out, claims that the investigation was unfounded
“essentially ignored what the special counsel has already accomplished: uncovering an assortment of crimes com-
mitted by dozens of people, including Trump campaign advisers.” [Slate, 5/1/19]

April 5
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum claimed that rules prevent Attorney General William Barr from releasing the
unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to Congress.

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): Why not just wait until [the attorney general releases the redacted Muel-
ler report] and then see what you get and if you don’t get everything you want, then you go to the next level.

REP. HARLEY ROUDA (D-CA): Well, let’s understand that we have committees within Congress who deal
with classified information every single day --

MACCALLUM: Sure.

ROUDA: -- for the protection of our country. They are quite capable of reading this memorandum and
report without having the attorney general redact it. Could you imagine if [then-Attorney General] Janet
Reno had withheld the report under [independent counsel Kenneth] Starr’s investigation of President Clin-
ton and decided to redact it?

MACCALLUM: Those were different rules, though. The rules changed after that, and now the rules are
much more strict in terms of what can be released from these kinds of special counsel investigations. So,
you know, the Department of Justice --

ROUDA: To the public, yes, but not Congress.

MACCALLUM: -- says that we are going -- you know, we’re going by the rules. [Fox News, The Story with
Martha MacCallum, 4/5/19]

FACT: The attorney general redacted four types of material from the Mueller report. According to Lawfare,
there is no legal argument to bar all members of Congress from seeing three of those types, and there are ave-
nues that allow them to see the fourth. Barr redacted four types of information from the Mueller report provided
to Congress and the public: grand jury materials, material that could compromise sources and methods, material
related to ongoing investigations, and material related to peripheral third parties. In a letter, Barr informed the
chairs of the Senate and House judiciary committees that he would provide a “less-redacted” version of the Mueller
report -- revealing all but the material related to the grand jury -- only to the chairs and ranking members of those
committees and the “Gang of Eight” (the Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress, as well
as the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees). As Lawfare noted:
 For the latter three categories of redacted information, there is no legal bar to the attorney general provid-
ing such material to members of Congress. Members routinely review classified information, and they can
review sensitive law enforcement related or personal information in a nonpublic setting.

The fourth category of redacted information, grand jury material, is subject to the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce-
dure. Although a recent D.C. circuit ruling “narrowed the grounds on which a court could release grand jury infor-
mation to the House judiciary committee,” according to Lawfare, there are ways that material could be released to
Congress, including through an order by the judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings. [Letter from Attorney
General William Barr to the chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, 4/18/19; Lawfare, 4/17/19]

April 6
FALSE: Anchor Jon Scott said that “you can’t necessarily blame a Republican president” for the immigration
problem at the U.S.-Mexico border when “Democratic members of Congress and past Democratic administra-
tions haven’t fixed it either.”

JON SCOTT (ANCHOR): Howard Schultz is one of those competing against the president. He wants the
White House job. He blames the president for exaggerating and exacerbating the problems at the border.

He is right, the problem’s been underway since President Reagan thought he solved it once and for all. But
you can’t necessarily blame a Republican president when Democratic members of Congress and past Dem-
ocratic administrations haven’t fixed it either. [Fox News, Fox Report with Jon Scott, 4/6/19]

FACT: Trump administration policies have exacerbated the situation at the border, and multiple attempts at
comprehensive immigration reform in Congress and under Obama were blocked by congressional Republicans.
The situation at the border has been demonstrably worsened by policies like metering, which limits the number of
people who can present themselves at a port of entry at the border each day, leading to disruption at the border
and, according to the DHS inspector general, to more people crossing the border illegally. Furthermore, two at-
tempts at comprehensive immigration reform, one in 2006 and one in 2013, passed in the Senate and were backed
by President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama respectively, but were blocked from receiving a vote by
GOP leadership in the Republican House. [PolitiFact, 1/26/18; Politico, 3/28/19]

April 7
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed special counsel Robert Mueller found “no collusion” and that British
former intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s dossier was “dirty.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): Congressman [Devin] Nunes was one of the first to cast doubt on the Rus-
sian collusion narrative. He’s been working two years to uncover and expose it.

Look, this is the first time you and I are talking on this program. I spoke with you last week, I know, on Morn-
ings with Maria on the Fox Business Network. But this is the first time we’re talking after the conclusion of
the “no collusion” from the special counsel and from the AG.

That’s what our viewers want to know, where is the accountability? You wrote this op-ed in the Washington
Examiner, “The Russian collusion hoax meets unbelievable end,” where you really laid out exactly how this
started and how the Clinton campaign paid for a dirty dossier which was then penetrated throughout our
government, throughout the media, to keep this narrative alive and put a cloud under a duly elected presi-
dent for two years. [Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures, 4/7/19]
FACT: Mueller explicitly clarified that he did not reach a conclusion on collusion, and the material in the Steele
dossier was raw intelligence, much of which is supported and none of which is disproven by publicly available
information. The special counsel report emphasized that “‘collusion’ has no legal definition and is not a federal
crime.” So, though the report did not “make a determination on ‘collusion,’” according to Vox, “it strongly suggests
that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.” Among
other things, Mueller’s report establishes a series of communications between the Trump campaign and Rus-
sia. Additionally, the report revealed that “after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he
privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them.” His foreign policy adviser George
Papadopoulos also “attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and ... Trump personally approved
Papadopoulos’ work on this front.”

Additionally, as Lawfare noted, “the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence” that “Steele neither evaluated nor
synthesized. … The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.” And
while much of the material in the Steele dossier “remains uncorroborated,” a great deal of publicly available infor-
mation “buttress[es] some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over
time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.” [Vox, 4/18/19; Lawfare, 12/14/18]

April 8
FALSE: Anchor David Asman claimed economic growth was slow under Obama and that “it wasn’t until Trump
came along ... that we saw the kind of growth -- job growth, wage growth -- that we see now.”

DAVID ASMAN (FOX BUSINESS ANCHOR): Now [Democrats] are saying that they want to check capitalism.
Well, we know what checked capitalism looks like. We saw it during the Obama administration. Harnessed
capitalism means that you grow at rates that we saw during the eight years of the Obama administration,
one of the lowest-growth two terms that we’ve seen under any president at all. Looks like growth in Europe,
which is pathetic. It’s just kind of creeping along. It wasn’t until Trump came along, took the handcuffs off
of most of the companies that we saw the kind of growth -- job growth, wage growth -- that we see now.
[Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 4/8/19]

FACT: Upward multi-year trends in jobs and wages started under Obama. According to The Washington Post Fact
Checker, “The start of Trump’s economy follows the trend set by the last years of Obama’s economy.” The article
noted that “the economy added more jobs in every year of Obama’s second term than it did in Trump’s first year.
This holds true when examining the average number of jobs added per month.” The fact check acknowledged that
a White House official pointed out that it’s an unfair comparison because the economy is now at full employment,
but undeniably, job growth under Trump was the continuation of a trend, not its turnaround. On wages, the data
shows that “real median wages for all workers have been steadily increasing since 2014. In the last quarter of 2017,
they plunged below their rate when Trump took office but have since recovered to about the same level. In other
words, after an initial bump, wages are basically where Obama left them.” [The Washington Post, 8/18/18]

April 9
FALSE: Chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge said the sale of Uranium One to a Russian agency
was a “scandal involving the Clinton Foundation.”

CATHERINE HERRIDGE (CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT): There’s also a larger issue here, ac-
cording to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who, as you remember, was recently the head of the Judiciary
Committee that was looking at the Russia and the Clinton email investigations. And the senator went to the
floor yesterday to make the point that while Democrats want all of the evidence in the Russia case, they
should also be asking for all of the underlying evidence in the Clinton email and Uranium One probes. That
was a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 4/9/19]

FACT: Hillary Clinton had no involvement in the sale of Uranium One; it was approved by an interagency panel.
The conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton was involved in the 2010 sale of the mining company Uranium One to the
Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency was debunked shortly after it was first alleged in Clinton Cash, a 2015 book
by discredited conservative author Peter Schweizer. Schweizer speculated that Clinton had approved the deal
because of money given to the Clinton Foundation by some Russians and people linked to the deal. But the State
Department had one of nine votes on the committee that approved the deal and the State Department representa-
tive on the committee said Clinton never intervened on the issue.

Furthermore, most of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation that conservatives point to in this conspiracy
theory came from the founder of the company, who sold his stake in Uranium One three years before the deal took
place and more than a year before Clinton became secretary of state. [Media Matters, 10/24/17; The Washington
Post, 11/15/17]

April 10
FALSE: Correspondent Trace Gallagher misinterpreted a study to claim that “most people adapt to environmen-
tal change” rather than migrating because of it.”

SHANNON BREAM (ANCHOR): Freshman congresswoman democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

says that climate change is a major factor in the illegal immigration crisis and if you don’t sign on to the
Green New Deal, you are a big part of the problem. Correspondent Trace Gallagher digging into the data on
that claim tonight. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER (CORRESPONDENT): Good evening, Shannon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could not have
been more blunt, saying that if the New Green Deal doesn’t get passed and if we don’t take immediate and
drastic action to fight climate change, quote, “We will have blood on our hands.” The freshman Congress
member then went on Twitter to attack conservatives for their stance on immigration, quoting, “Have you
ever noticed they never talk about what’s causing people to flee their homes in the first place? Perhaps
that’s because they’d be forced to confront one major factor fueling global migration: climate change.”

...

[I]n fairness, in the years that we have covered Central American caravans, we have found those who fled
their countries because of drought and its effects on agriculture, there have been some. But among the
hundreds of interviews Fox News has conducted, the vast majority of migrants say they left behind an aw-
ful economy and are moving toward what they believe the U.S. has to offer.

...

And late last year, four European professors in three countries interviewed 3,500 migrants worldwide, and
their study, published in The Washington Post, concluded that climate-induced environmental change does
not necessarily lead to more migration. In fact, most people adapt to environmental change. [Fox News,
Fox News @ Night with Shannon Bream, 4/10/19]

FACT: The study actually found that while individuals and families would prefer to adapt rather than to migrate,
adaptation is not always possible, and so environmental changes do lead to migration. The study examined the
relationship between environmental migration and conflict, finding that the way environmental migrants perceive
conflict in their new locations depends on the kind of environmental changes that caused them to move. While the
Washington Post summary of the study did include the quote (emphasis original), “Climate-induced environmen-
tal change does not necessarily lead to more migration,” Gallagher misrepresented its meaning. According to the
study’s authors, “individuals/families usually try their best to adapt to environmental changes, if this is possible.
But adaptation often is possible only with slow-onset and prolonged environmental changes.” The authors also cit-
ed a World Bank report on climate change and migration, which “reveals that, given adequate development oppor-
tunities, including adaptation measures, internal migration in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America
triggered by climate change could be reduced by up to 80 percent.” [The Washington Post, 10/15/18; International
Organization, 6/4/18]
 April 11
FALSE: Anchor David Asman claimed, “It is absolutely undeniable that there is shadow banning, that there is an
attempt to stomp out conservatives.”

DAVID ASMAN (ANCHOR): I understand people -- because [social media] has worked so fast, people want
fast answers. And I don’t think there are fast answers in this one. I think it is absolutely undeniable that
there is shadow banning, that there is an attempt to stomp out conservatives by a lot of -- I mean, they said
it. You know, it was Google after the election, they -- you saw people come out and crying about Trump’s
victory. But I don’t think monopoly regulation is the way to go. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 4/11/19]

FACT: Quantitative data does not support claims that tech companies are censoring conservatives, which are
largely based on anecdotal situations that can be explained by technical reasons unrelated to bias or censor-
ship. As The Washington Post noted, “Experts have said there is no evidence that Facebook, Google and Twitter
have deliberately sought to limit the reach of Republicans.” In fact, many of the examples cited to argue that
Google and other tech companies censor conservatives can actually be explained by technical reasons unrelated
to bias or censorship, including anti-spam policies used on those platforms to combat inauthentic behavior or
digital illiteracy on the part of users. For example, one conservative site complained of bias because autocomplete
search results on Google didn’t show that there had been no new indictments stemming from the Trump-Russia
investigation, ignoring the platform’s policies against character denigration that avoid offering predictions con-
taining “indictment” next to a person’s name. [The Washington Post, 4/10/19; Media Matters, 4/10/19]

April 12
FALSE: Anchors Sandra Smith and Bill Hemmer both pushed the claim that Attorney General Bill Barr said there
was “spying” on the Trump campaign.

BILL HEMMER (ANCHOR): Also, the Attorney General Bill Barr telling Congress he believes there was spying
on the Trump campaign.

SANDRA SMITH (ANCHOR): Reaction now to Attorney General Wallace Barr saying there was, quote, “spying
on the Trump campaign.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 4/12/19, 4/12/19]

FACT: Minutes before their comments, anchor Chris Wallace explained on air why it was wrong to characterize
Barr’s comments as him affirming claims of spying on the Trump campaign. Barr was testifying before a Senate
appropriations subcommittee about the Mueller report on April 10 when, citing no evidence, he repeated the claim
that the FBI conducted “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016. Later in his testimony, Barr walked the statement
back, saying: “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying that I am concerned about it and I’m
looking into it.” [Media Matters, 4/12/19; Media Matters, 3/20/19]

April 13
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf put “ICE agents’ lives po-
tentially in jeopardy” by tipping off the immigrant community about ICE raids.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Somebody who has been front and center from the left
in this debate is Libby Schaaf. She’s the mayor out in Oakland. Now, there are legitimate questions about
whether or not what the president wants to do here is legal and that’s going to be debated and fought out.
But she might not be a good messenger, Libby Schaaf, in terms of calling the president out. Here’s what
she said yesterday, she said, “It is an outrageous abuse of power -- using human beings to settle political
scores. Our president wants to punish everyone; those who seek sanctuary in our country and those who
provide it.” Here’s what’s interesting: Remember about a year ago, it was Libby Schaaf who was out there
 tipping off illegal immigrants in this country to the idea that there were going to be ICE raids --

PETE HEGSETH (FOX & FRIENDS WEEKEND CO-HOST): I forgot about that.

HENRY: -- putting ICE agents lives potentially in jeopardy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 4/13/19]

FACT: Schaaf publicly informed residents of potential ICE raids and directed people to legal resources to
“protect” them -- not to put ICE agents in harm’s way. Schaaf’s office released a statement that she also post-
ed on Twitter that alerted undocumented members of the Oakland community about an ICE operation in the Bay
area and encouraged them to consult immigration resources. She wrote in the message that she was “sharing this
information publicly” to “not to panic our residents but to protect them,” and that her priority was the “well-being
and safety of all residents.” The message also encouraged residents to know their rights and offered a link to legal
resources. Media Matters searched reports on the raids and found no mention of anyone getting hurt. [Twitter,
2/24/19]

April 14
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo said the Democratic presidential candidates have “no policies … that actually
move the needle and help people.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): So far, the Democrats have been all about let’s take down Trump. That’s
their only thing that they’re unified on, and they have nothing, no policies. I haven’t heard any policies in
fact, from any of these guys or gals, that actually move the needle and help people because the economy
is doing so well. So, you know, they were running around, hair on fire, “oh, recession’s coming” -- it’s not -- I
don’t see that from these numbers, you’ve got great numbers on the unemployment story last month as
well. So I think it’s better than expected; they’re going to have to get a new issue. [Fox News, Fox & Friends
Weekend, 4/14/19]

FACT: Democratic candidates have already proposed major policy changes on a variety of issues, including
health care, education, immigration, housing, and environmental regulation. Many Democratic candidates’
plans unquestionably “move the needle” as they propose major shifts in entrenched American systems. Examples
include Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) plan to cancel most student loan debt and make public college free and
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) Medicare for All plan, which would require the United States to adopt universal govern-
ment-sponsored health care. [Vox, 4/23/19; The New York Times, 4/22/19; Vox, 4/10/19]

April 15
FALSE: Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed the Green New Deal has a “$100 trillion estimated price tag.”

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): So I was just in real America, in Iowa, and I can tell you that this is a thing.
And I can tell you that it’s a thing not just from the perspective of the senator who was on set with me, but
people in the audience looking at this, in farming land, in agriculture Iowa, who are looking at the conver-
sation around energy and the Green New Deal and that $100 trillion estimated price tag -- $600,000 per
household, if we were to extrapolate that out. They’re looking at these issues and they’re saying, if the
majority of the people in the House via their constituents are having conversations about this, that’s a
problem. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/15/19]

FACT: The $100 trillion number comes from an employee at a think tank backed by fossil fuel companies and
investors, and the employee openly admits he has “no idea” how much key components of the deal would cost.
Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, attempted to put a price tag on the Green New Deal in a
Twitter thread. He admitted in the thread that most of the plan “cannot even be costed out,” but he still decided to
guess that the cost “must be heading towards $100 trillion.” This guess was then adopted by right-wing media as
a real cost estimate. In reality, the Green New Deal resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is just a broad, 14-page outline of goals with no policy specifics, so determining a price
tag is a fanciful exercise. [Energy and Policy Institute, 3/14/19; The Washington Post, 3/21/19; Twitter, 2/8/19; Media
Matters, 3/18/19]

April 16
FALSE: Anchor Martha MacCallum claimed Bernie Sanders said that people should pay 52% in taxes.

MARTHA MACCALLUM (ANCHOR): We asked Bernie Sanders, you know, if you believe so strongly that peo-
ple should pay -- he said 52%, he has a 70% estate tax that’s also on top of that, a lot of taxes on it -- why
don’t you just carve out the money that that would constitute and send a check to the government? No one
is stopping you from paying more if you truly feel in your heart that you should pay more. [Fox News, The
Story with Martha MacCallum, 4/16/19]

FACT: Sanders’ plan proposed a 52% top marginal tax rate, which would apply only to people whose annual
income is great than $10 million. [The New York Times, 4/15/19; Tax Policy Center, 10/18/16]

April 17
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed Democrats aren’t working to increase “the man and woman power at”
immigration detention centers. Specifically, he noted Democrats’ lack of policy proposals to provide “more judges
down at the border to deal with the population surge.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): There doesn’t seem to be any ground either Democrats are giving, going back to
the wall and funding for it, to increasing the man and woman power at these detention centers. And don’t
even get started on maybe providing more judges down at the border to deal with the population surge. So,
what happens in the near term? [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/17/19]

FACT: Democrats have proposed improving ports of entry and adding $563 million to hire more immigration
judges. In addition to adding judges, Democrats’ January spending bill proposal included “$524 million to improve a
port of entry in California and another in Arizona.” [The Associated Press, 1/18/19]

April 18
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry falsely claimed, “You can’t obstruct something if there is no
underlying crime.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Think about what they have said in the run-up to this.
Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow have said you can’t obstruct something if there is no underlying crime. So
if part one of the Mueller report says there was no collusion/conspiracy coordination between the Trump
campaign and the Russians, then there is no underlying criminal activity by the president of the United
States. So then how can you say, “Well, there is no crime but you obstructed justice even though you didn’t
commit a crime”? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/18/19]

FACT: According to The Washington Post, “It’s black letter law that a defendant can satisfy the corrupt intent
criterion for obstruction even if the defendant himself committed no underlying crime.” Numerous cases have
set precedent for a defendant to be convicted of obstruction without actually committing crime, and there are
“possible motives Trump may have had to obstruct justice, even if no collusion with Russia was involved,” such as
wanting to protect his then-national security adviser Michael Flynn from criminal charges or to hide embarrassing
information about himself. Additionally, Mueller’s report specifies that “proof of such a crime is not an element of
an obstruction offense.” [The Washington Post, 3/26/19; Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In
The 2016 Presidential Election, March 2019]
 April 19
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed Trump isn’t guilty of obstruction of justice because his
orders to obstruct justice were ignored.

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Well on that incident that Brian was talking about with
Don McGahn, who was White House counsel at the time, it basically talked about the president calling him
up, and the report says that weekend, the president called McGahn and directed him to have the special
counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest. McGahn did not carry out the instruction for
fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday-night massacre and instead prepared to resign himself.
Now McGahn ultimately did not quit and the president did not follow up with McGahn on his request to have
the special counsel removed. Important points there because in the end, embarrassing details for the
president about how it all played out. But he didn’t act on it. McGahn didn’t act on it. So there was no remov-
al of Robert Mueller. So no obstruction there. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/19/19]

FACT: While Mueller’s office did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, his team ex-
amined 10 instances in which he may have obstructed justice. According to the report, these instances include
Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, as well as “public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to
control it, and efforts both in public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”
[CBS News, 4/19/19]

April 20
FALSE: Anchor Jon Scott suggested that “the attorney general is not allowed by law to give an unredacted
report to Congress.”

JON SCOTT (ANCHOR): So Democrat Jerry Nadler, from the Judiciary Committee in the House, wants the
unredacted report. He has subpoenaed that, his committee has. But the attorney general is not allowed by
law to give an unredacted report to Congress, is he?

ELISA COLLINS (USA TODAY CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER): No. Well, the grand jury material is what has to
be redacted and Chairman Jerry Nadler is asking for the whole thing to be unredacted. So we’re now going
to a court battle. [Fox News, Fox Report with Jon Scott, 4/20/19]

FACT: The attorney general redacted four types of material from the Mueller report. According to Lawfare,
there is no legal argument to bar all members of Congress from seeing three of those types, and there are ave-
nues that allow them to see the fourth. Barr redacted four types of information from the Mueller report provided
to Congress and the public: grand jury materials, material that could compromise sources and methods, material
related to ongoing investigations, and material related to peripheral third parties. In a letter, Barr informed the
chairs of the Senate and House judiciary committees that he would provide a “less-redacted” version of the Mueller
report -- revealing all but the material related to the grand jury -- only to the chairs and ranking members of those
committees and the “Gang of Eight” (the Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress, as well
as the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees). As Lawfare noted:

For the latter three categories of redacted information, there is no legal bar to the attorney general provid-
ing such material to members of Congress. Members routinely review classified information, and they can
review sensitive law enforcement related or personal information in a nonpublic setting.

The fourth category of redacted information, grand jury material, is subject to the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce-
dure. Although a recent D.C. circuit ruling “narrowed the grounds on which a court could release grand jury infor-
mation to the House judiciary committee,” according to Lawfare, there are ways that material could be released to
Congress, including through an order by the judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings. [Letter from Attorney
General William Barr to the chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, 4/18/19; Lawfare, 4/17/19]
 April 21
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo asked if there will be accountability for “those people who started an investi-
gation into Donald Trump for no other reason other than they just wanted to stop him and didn’t like him.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): Do you think Bill Barr is going to be following the truth, and will we see actual
accountability prosecutions for those people who started an investigation into Donald Trump for no other
reason other than they just wanted to stop him and didn’t like him? [Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures,
4/21/19]

FACT: The Russia investigation started amid numerous reports of suspicious contacts between Russians
and Trump associates when Australian government officials informed the FBI that a Trump adviser knew of
hacked Democratic emails. According to the Washington Post, on April 26, 2016, a Russia-linked professor told
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “thousands of emails” containing
damaging information on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In May 2016, Papadopoulos told Aus-
tralian diplomat Alexander Downer what he knew about Russia’s possession of Hillary’s emails. In July 2016, when
WikiLeaks first began releasing the emails, Australian government officials informed the FBI about the conver-
sation between Downer and Papadopoulos, leading the FBI to open the counterintelligence investigation into the
Trump campaign, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” on July 31.

In addition, as ABC reported, “The FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on [Trump campaign adviser
Carter] Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016,” due to his history of
suspicious contacts with Russian officials dating back to 2013. The FBI sent an informant to speak with Page and
Papadopoulos “only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the
campaign,” according to The New York Times. Various other Trump campaign associates also had links to Russian
officials, including foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort who left the
campaign in August 2016 after reporting suggested that “he received millions in illicit payments from political ac-
tors in Ukraine.” [The Washington Post, 9/19/18; ABC News, 8/18/18; The New York Times, 5/18/18]

April 22
FALSE: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry claimed Mueller “found not a single American, a Trump official,
… colluded with the Russians.”

ED HENRY (CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): [Mueller] also found not a single American, a Trump offi-
cial, a Clinton official, no Americans colluded with the Russians, correct?

REP. KATIE HILL (D-CA): Collusion is not a legal term. That’s one thing of note. The other piece is that --
while there was not -- you know again, I don’t even know why we keep using this term “collusion.” [Fox News,
The Story with Martha MacCallum, 4/22/19]

FACT: While Mueller’s team did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy, it did not reach a conclusion on col-
lusion. The report emphasizes that “‘collusion’ has no legal definition and is not a federal crime.” So, though the
report did not “make a determination on ‘collusion,” according to Vox, “it strongly suggests that there was at least
an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.” Among other things, Mueller’s
report establishes a series of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia. Additionally, the report
revealed that “two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates,
were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a ‘spy.’ … After Trump
publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Mi-
chael Flynn to find them. Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of
people that he was in contact with Russian agents. ... Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempt-
ed to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on
this front.” [Vox, 4/18/19]
 April 23
FALSE: Anchor Melissa Francis claimed that Trump “was being falsely accused” in the Mueller probe.

DANIEL HENNINGER (WALL STREET JOURNAL): The quickness with which this story has pivoted from the
Russia collusion narrative of two years, of which there was nothing in the Mueller report, to now we’re on
the impeach Trump narrative over the obstruction issue. I mean, the collusion narrative has evaporated
like a soap bubble. And the obstruction is for obstructing acts that never occurred. I mean, Trump knew at
the time that he had done nothing, right? By definition, since Mueller concluded there was nothing to the
collusion accusations. So now we’re in this kind of conversation about impeaching Trump for “bad behavior”
inside the White House.

MELISSA FRANCIS (ANCHOR): When he was being falsely accused. [Fox News, Outnumbered Overtime with
Harris Faulkner, 4/23/19]

FACT: The Mueller report did not establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia, but it did not reach a conclusion
on “collusion” either. And it did find at least four areas where Trump likely obstructed justice. The report em-
phasizes that “‘collusion’ has no legal definition and is not a federal crime.” So, though the report did not “make a
determination on ‘collusion,” according to Vox, “it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by
Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.”

Further, according to an analysis by The Washington Post, even though the Mueller report did not charge the pres-
ident with obstruction of justice, the special counsel “detailed four to five acts that would meet the legal thresh-
old to be charged as crimes”: 1) attempting to influence Manafort’s decision to cooperate with the government,
2) attempting to have then-White House counsel Don McGahn deny that Trump ordered Mueller fired, 3) ordering
then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end the special counsel investigation, 4) trying to fire Mueller because of
(false) conflicts of interest, and 5) trying to persuade -- and then intimidate -- Trump fixer Michael Cohen into not
cooperating with the government. According to the Post, “on Nos. 2, 3 and 4, [Mueller] seems to be pretty firm” that
evidence exists that Trump obstructed justice. [Vox, 4/18/19; The Washington Post, 4/23/19]

April 24
FALSE: Anchor Melissa Francis pushed Barr’s claim that Mueller didn’t indict Trump because there wasn’t
enough evidence, not because of the Office of Legal Council memo against indicting sitting presidents.

MELISSA FRANCIS (ANCHOR): [Attorney General Barr] said that he specifically said to Mueller, “Is the rea-
son why you don’t think it’s appropriate to indict the president because you believe that you can’t indict a
sitting president?” And he said, “No, that is not the reason that I don’t think it’s appropriate here. I think that
there isn’t enough evidence.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/24/19]

FACT: The Mueller report shows that the special counsel felt constrained by existing Justice Department
opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. According to Wired magazine, Barr “misrepresented Mueller’s
reasoning for not making a ‘traditional prosecutorial decision’ on the obstruction half of his investigation” by imply-
ing that Mueller left that decision up to Barr. However, “the report makes clear that Mueller felt constrained by the
Justice Department policy that a sitting president could not be indicted.” Business Insider also noted that “Muel-
ler’s report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn’t indict Trump or suggest he should be charged”:
the 1973 Office of Legal Council memo about indicting sitting presidents, concerns over fairness if they suggest-
ed charges without bringing them, and concerns over his ability to govern if they filed a sealed indictment and it
leaked. [Wired, 4/18/19; Business Insider, 4/19/19]
 April 25
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo asserted that there was no “predicate” to the Trump-Russia investigation, and
Clinton “really wasn’t investigated over her email scandal.”

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): We know that Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier, was tangled up with Rus-
sians to actually try to get dirt on Donald Trump. There’s a whole investigation now going on in terms of how
that investigation into Donald Trump started, because it was no predicate. We know that the FBI handled
her with kid gloves, that she really wasn’t investigated over her email scandal. [Fox Business, Mornings with
Maria, 4/25/19]

FACT: The Mueller report explicitly states the cause of the investigation, and Clinton’s emails were extensively
investigated. CNN analyst Asha Rangappa highlighted page 89 of the Mueller report, which states in no uncertain
terms that a “foreign government conveyed this information” about Trump adviser George Papadopoulos’ commu-
nications with and about Russia “to the U.S. government on July 26, 2016, a few days after WikiLeaks’s release of
Clinton-related emails. The FBI opened its investigation of potential coordination between Russia and the Trump
Campaign a few days later based on the information.”

Additionally, the FBI’s years-long investigation into Clinton’s emails uncovered numerous previously undisclosed
facts including “several thousand” more emails than those that were originally turned over, and the investigation
was memorably revisited for a brief period of time right before the 2016 presidential election. Even though the FBI
found numerous mistakes and broken rules on Clinton’s part, then-Director James Comey said that none of her
conduct constituted “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct
justice.” [Twitter, 4/20/19; The New York Times, 7/5/16, 10/29/16, 11/6/16]

April 26
FALSE: Anchor Neil Cavuto claimed that the Mueller report “seemed to jibe with the initial bullet point findings
that Bill Barr had. … Barr characterized it the way I guess the Mueller folks meant it they couldn’t prove it one
way or the other.”

NEIL CAVUTO (ANCHOR): It seemed to jibe with the initial bullet point findings that Bill Barr had. Now, we
can differ over whether an obstruction of justice was warranted there -- or charges to that effect. But I
believe Barr characterized it the way I guess the Mueller folks meant it they couldn’t prove it one way or the
other. So I don’t know what Barr would have somehow misrepresented or am I missing something? [Fox
News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/26/19]

FACT: Barr’s memo to Congress failed to grasp the full scope of the Mueller report. Barr pulled a quote from the
report that the “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated
with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The quote is accurate but incomplete -- the full
quote from the report first mentions that “the investigation established that the Russian government perceived
it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it
would benefit electorally” from said Russian efforts. A Slate analysis showed that Barr’s memo has several instanc-
es in which the quotes he chose “didn’t give the full story,” and said the full truth is more complex -- and damning
-- to the president.

In fact, four days after Cavuto made that statement, media reported that Mueller had written a letter to Barr on
March 27 complaining that his “summary letter” fed inaccurate media coverage of the report by stripping important
nuance from its findings (though Cavuto had no way of knowing this during his April 26 show). [Slate, 4/18/19; The
New York Times, 4/30/19; CNN, 5/1/19]
 April 27
FALSE: Anchor Jon Scott blamed the mass shooting in Poway, CA, and other such shootings on violent video
games.

JON SCOTT (ANCHOR): So many of these shooters comes from similar backgrounds and so many of them
have, you know, fed themselves a diet of violent video games. When you play the video games, nobody gets
hurt, but maybe the case that he goes to this synagogue and shoots people and finds that the actual act
is not nearly as, what, devoid of humanity as it is when you’re watching it on a TV screen. [Fox News, Fox
Report with Jon Scott, 4/27/19]

FACT: Scientific evidence does not support the theory that violent video games are linked to violence and
crime. A 2013 study in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma looked at environmental influences on
violence and concluded that ”media use was not associated with either increased or decreased risk of adult crimi-
nality.”

Previous research into this topic has produced similar results. First Amendment watchdog group Media Coalition
summarized past studies on violent video games, writing, “Reviews by the governments of Australia, Great Britain
and Sweden have all studied the research claiming a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior
and concluded that it is flawed, flimsy and inconclusive.”

Media Coalition also noted that in the course of striking down a California law seeking to restrict the sale of violent
video games, “the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 noted that the scientific evidence the state relied upon had been
rejected by nearly every court to consider it, and that ‘most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in
methodology.’”

The Washington Post’s Max Fisher analyzed the data on video game sales and gun-related killings internationally,
writing, “Looking at the world’s 10 largest video game markets yields no evident, statistical correlation between
video game consumption and gun-related killings.”

In fact, Fisher found that “this data actually suggests a slight downward shift in violence as video game consump-
tion increases” and concluded that ”video game consumption, based on international data, does not seem to cor-
relate at all with an increase in gun violence.”

A 2018 New York Times article on a similar allegation by Trump reported, “Media scholars say the claims about video
games and violent movies — a common one in the wake of mass shootings — does not hold up to scrutiny.” [Media
Matters, 9/17/13; The New York Times, 2/23/18]

April 28
FALSE: Anchor Maria Bartiromo said construction of a border fence drove crime rates down in El Paso, TX.

MARIA BARTIROMO (ANCHOR): El Paso saw high crime rates in the ‘80s and ‘90s when there was almost no
border security, but those numbers have plummeted after new fencing was installed. [Fox News, Sunday
Morning Futures, 4/28/19]

FACT: A border barrier did not drive down crime in El Paso. The 42-mile fence in the El Paso sector was built
between August 2008 and July 2009. FBI crime data shows that in 2007, the violent crime rate in the area was 417.8
offenses per 100,000 people. From 2007 to 2011, the violent crime rate actually increased 3.2%, though it’s unlikely
that the slight increase in an already low violent crime rate was attributable to the barrier. [PolitiFact, 2/8/19]
 April 29
FALSE: Guest anchor Charles Payne suggested that Trump’s comments in which he sympathized with white
supremacists involved in the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally were taken out of context.

CHARLES PAYNE (GUEST ANCHOR): But [Joe Biden] started [his 2020 presidential campaign] with the
Charlottesville thing, which upset a lot of people because it, you know, it’s one of these things where if
you listen to the entire interview, you know, it doesn’t -- there are parts in that interview where President
Trump clearly says, “ey, you know what, I’m not talking about these separatists.” [Fox News, Your World with
Neil Cavuto, 4/29/19]

FACT: Trump said that “you also had people that were very fine people on both sides” of a white nationalist
rally and the counter-protests. Payne appeared to be referring to Trump’s later comments (said only after he drew
sustained international outrage for equating anti-racism protesters with neo-Nazis) that he was “not talking about
the neo-Nazis or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally,” and that “you had many people
in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”

However, the Unite the Right rally was a white nationalist gathering with a significant potential for violence and
intimidation. It was organized by two white nationalists (one of whom, Richard Spencer, is clearly publicly known as
a white nationalist), former KKK leader David Duke was scheduled to speak, many attendees brought melee weap-
ons and defensive gear (or even firearms), and a large number of supporters staged a pre-rally the night before,
carrying torches through the streets and chanting “Jews will not replace us” and the verbatim Hitler-era Nazi Party
slogan “blood and soil.” As The Washington Post put it, “Even if such [‘very fine’] people were somehow there, the
overwhelming thrust of the rally was clearly not so innocuous.” [The Washington Post, 4/26/19; The Trace, 10/12/17;
Quartz, 8/15/17]

April 30
FALSE: Correspondent Griff Jenkins warned that “the word that our borders are open, that catch and release
will let you stay in America, has gone global.”

GRIFF JENKINS (CORRESPONDENT): I’m about 25 miles north of the Guatemala-Mexico border in the town
of Tapachula. It’s been the stop for the caravans since they started coming. But one thing is very different
and that is the word that our borders are open, that catch and release will let you stay in America, has gone
global. We’ve run into migrants from Africa, from India, from Bangladesh, from Haiti, from Cuba. And we’ve
only been here for about 24 hours. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/30/19]

FACT: The United States does not have anything approaching “open borders.” There’s plentiful evidence of
nationwide border enforcement, including Border Patrol’s presence on the southern border, strict limits on the
number of visas given to foreigners, immigration status questions on job applications, and customs officers at in-
ternational airports. As Vox wrote, “The United States of America as it exists today is, in fact, a country, and it has
borders. Our borders are not currently open, nor were they open under George W. Bush.”

Vox also noted that it is not “remotely true that harsher immigration laws are required to avoid a situation of bor-
derlessness” -- on a similar note, Jenkins’ implication that so-called “catch and release” is to blame for the recent
influx of migrants is disingenuous, since that policy is from the George W. Bush era. [Vox, 6/22/18; The Washington
Post, 4/4/18]
Media Matters determined which personalities fell under the news
division using the job description on the Fox News and Fox Business
websites. We included people with the job titles of anchor, reporter, and
correspondent. We also included analysts when they appeared on a news
division program and guest anchors of news division programs.

Research contributed by Katie Sullivan, Grace Bennett, Bobby Lewis,

Courtney Hagle, Zachary Pleat, Gabby Miller, Tyler Monroe, Alex Walker,
& Tim Johnson

PDF Design by Sarah Wasko