From the Article :
Of the three points of Bernie’s they looked up, two were rated true the third, his campaign ad statement, was true but misleading.
In December, the Sanders campaign abruptly pulled an internet ad that highlighted ties between Clinton and financial institutions, according to The Washington Post. A Sanders spokesman told the Post that the ad appeared due to "a miscommunication in our communications shop."
Clinton and her supporters have said that the ad is one piece in one of the most negative campaigns run by a Democrat. Sanders and his team say that a negative ad only consists of personal attacks, and that any talk of Goldman Sachs fees counts as a "contrast ad" on the issues.
Sanders carefully parsed his language to say he hasn't engaged in a negative "ad."
Sanders has certainly injected negativity into the campaign. He hasn't been shy about going hard after Clinton on her speaking fees and a whole range of items on the trail and in social media.
Here's an example: A tweet posted from his presidential campaign Twitter account two hours before the town hall listed more than two dozen of Clinton's failings, including having a Wall Street-funded super PAC and supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Verdict: True, but misleading.
Now, we can parse out what negative ads are all day, I am just going to let it go for now because injecting “negativity” by going after legit concerns on speaking fees and supporting the invasion of Iraq is, in my mind, not negative. It speaks to her actions, it is not making up false claims.
Clinton did not fare so well: Of the 6 items they fact checked she was only rated true on two, there was one false, the Iraq vote and several true but misleading or true with qualifiers. The true but misleading ones I will highlight.
On her speaking fees:
What differs between those former secretaries of state and Clinton is the paychecks they're able to pull in.
Rice, who served as top diplomat in President George W. Bush's second term, earned a $150,000 payday for a speech at the University of Minnesota in 2014, the Minnesota Daily reported at the time.
Her predecessor, Powell, earns similar amounts for his appearances, raking in between $100,000 to $200,000 per speech, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
Meanwhile, Clinton's financial disclosure forms show she earned more than $300,000 for her top-paid speeches. The oft-cited figure of $675,000 for remarks to Goldman Sachs was payment for three speeches delivered in different states.
Clinton's claim that she isn't alone in earning money on the speaking circuit holds up, but, as one of the country's most famous women, she earns substantially more per speech than her predecessors at the State Department.
Verdict: True, but given the amounts, misleading.
On The Auto Bailout
Clinton sung the praises of President Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry, saying, "All of us paid for it. They paid back the Treasury. We didn't lose any money and we saved a lot of jobs."
When the Treasury Department closed the books on the $45.9 billion bailout, taxpayers had lost $10.6 billion.
We rate Clinton's claim that taxpayers didn't lose any money as false because the Treasury did not recoup its full investment in either automaker, but her claim that the bailout saved "a lot" of jobs as true.
On her contributions
Clinton touted her individual campaign contributions, saying, "I'm proud to have 90% of my donations from small donors and 60%, the highest ever, from women, which I'm really, really glad about."
So, as a percentage of contributors, the 90% that she cited is true. But looking at percentage of money raised, small contributors gave only 24% of the total raised. If we include that calculation, we must rate her claim as true, but misleading, since her campaign is mostly funded by large donors.
For the last quarter, the Clinton campaign also reported that more than 60% of its donations were from women.
Currently, Clinton's large donor breakdown by gender is 53%, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- but that percentage only includes those who have given $200 or more, not small donors.
In the reporting period ending in September 2015, women also made up 60% of Clinton's donors. However, in that same period, Sanders' campaign claimed that more women had donated to the Vermont senator than to Clinton (more than 300,000 women to about 240,000, respectively).
We rate her 60% claim to be true.
I did not watch the townhall, I usually don’t watch these things in general. I know who I am voting for so watching them go over their history and issues again and again doesn’t interest me. What does, however, is what they say. Hillary made a straight up false claim:
When asked about her 2002 Senate vote that authorized military action in Iraq, Clinton said she regretted the vote but at the time thought it would help compel Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government to allow the U.N. to continue inspections for possible weapons of mass destruction.
“And the U.N. inspector, Hans Blix, said give us the time, we will find out, give us the hammer over their head, namely the vote, and we will be able to find out what they still have in terms of (weapons of mass destruction)."
While speaking to the U.K. Iraq War inquiry in 2010, Blix acknowledged the pressure of the U.S. military buildup in the region had led Saddam to permit U.N. inspectors to return in September 2002.
Blix, who was the U.N. chief weapons inspector at the time, never voiced support for a unilateral military authorization in Iraq.
However, Blix also said that he did not believe the U.S. was entitled to invade Iraq without a U.N. Security Council resolution specifically authorizing military action.
Clinton's statement seems to suggest that Blix requested the Senate vote to aid inspections. There appears to be no evidence of this.
Verdict: False.
And thanks to the internet, and the fact that this was the top hit when I search Town Hall, people will know about it. They will also know how she tends to fudge certain things, like her donor numbers. Will it have an impact on the election? With more and more people fact checking on their own and having the instant access to do so, possibly. What it will do for sure, is be talked about, and negative press in elections is never really good press. Especially when you make a straight up false claim that is this easily verifiable.