1. The only two reasons charges weren't brought originally was the Trump team was considered too incompetent to try to take advantage of Russian help, and he got the presidency. There was lots of Russian help, and lots of people in Trump's circle have been shown to have ties to Russian assets.
2. What is the lie? That you consider them neo-Nazis, or that he said "there were fine people on both sides"? Cause one is you quibbling, the latter is a fact.
3. What lie? That he claimed that he was a victim and then found to be lying about it? Every part was covered.
4. You know, when there is an issue and it's exposed as a hoax, the normal news outlets still cover it, just like 3.
5. Issue exposed, just like 3. Even if there is reporting bias and it is mishandled, the mainstream media did get it right eventually. Even if it took longer than it should have.
6. That one happened.
7. His guilt was not proven, sure. The issue wasn't just that he was being accused of rape, part of the issue was that he should step down from the nomination because of that and other issues with him being nominated.
8. Did anyone believe they were real? From what I can tell the story is that there are possibly some compromising videos of Trump with Russian assets, and possibly involves pee. That's being generous.
9. Based on the evidence at the time, sure.
10. As far as I recall the origin is still positively unknown. Partly the lack of data, partly China being terrible about open information, and partly because lots of misinformation. There also is a difference between "The data does not yet show it is the result of a lab leak." And "It was not a lab leak." Just blaming Chinese labs based on poor information is not a great starting point though.
11. No evidence of whipping, but a fuckton of abuses were found. And the claims were initially raised in reactions to videos of the agents. It's not like the idea was just made up out of nothing.
12. He did though.
13. What about it? Make a claim.
14. Was intelligence that wasn't verified. Biden at most stated it on the campaign trail, but nothing conclusive was found. We know this because of the media.
15. Trump wondered if "injecting disinfectant" could help against COVID could help. Get your claims together. He also suggested UV light in the body, possibly through the skin.
16. Executive Order 13769? What about it?
17. The dubious nature of its origin means it "could have been" disinformation planted by Russia. Or anyone else, really.
18. Best is a bold claim, who is making it? Can't say he had worse leadership than the Trump administration though.
19. Was mostly the family separation thing people were riled about, the fenced off places the kids were stored just added a cherry on the top of the inhumane treatment sundae.
20. Yeah, I don't exactly agree with walking back a good assessment. But still it was an outlet and they got called out for it.
21. The reports explained it. Just because pictures showed Trump looking as dumb as he usually does doesn't mean the reports got it wrong. Twitter is not main stream news.
22. It won't or it's not planned to? If something is supposed to do it on paper and later doesn't, it wasn't really a lie, just prices went up.
23. Mostly.
24. If used properly they can really help.
25. Nope. Chances go down and the severity of any subsequent illness should be lessened.
26. Vague, but... that happened. Least there was one at a Christmas Parade in Wisconsin.
27. That one happened.
28. CS/CS/HB 1557: Parental Rights in Education, that's the Bill. And even if exact wording isn't in a thing, doesn't mean the colloquial term can't be used. The Big Bang involves no big bangs. The God Particle isn't some divine bit of matter. Being Rick rolled involves no rolling Rick's. That's just the nickname for the Bill.
29. Sure, I'll give that Putin isn't "the only" reason for price hikes. Bit his war in Ukriane has ducked with the global economy.
30. No, see. The hilarious thing with that was when there was some reports of it possibly being helpful, idiots used the animal versions of ivermectin.
31. I know. Fox stating that the Jan 6th stuff was mostly peaceful was... what? Not what you meant? Oh. But yeah, depends on the event and if you are conflating a protest with unrelated but proximate problems.
32. The claim is that he "tried to." And that's what people have given testimony saying.
33. Looking into the information uncovers the facts. Initial information might be incorrect. That's how news works.
34. By definition it was. You accepting that or not isn't a fault of the news.
35. On video, even.
36. Which was investigated by the media and found not to have happened. Any story I see about it is "Player claims slurs. No proof found." Which is... you know. How investigations go.
So from that entire Gish Gallop of claims, 20 was the closest one to a "Lie" you've got. The more damaging one's were you know, investigated and facts found. And you've a bunch that are "Media Lies" that are actually true events. So. Yeah. Fuck you.
