TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Before the 1990s in the United States, media companies were forbidden to own both newspapers and tel...

Fact Check: Before the 1990s in the United States, media companies were forbidden to own both newspapers and tel...

Published May 28, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
✗
VERDICT
Mostly False

# The Claim: "Before the 1990s in the United States, media companies were forbidden to own both newspapers and television stations in the same market....

The Claim: "Before the 1990s in the United States, media companies were forbidden to own both newspapers and television stations in the same market."

1. Introduction

The claim suggests that prior to the 1990s, U.S. regulations prohibited media companies from owning both newspapers and television stations within the same market. This assertion touches on the broader topic of media ownership regulations, which have evolved significantly over the decades, particularly with the advent of new technologies and changing market dynamics.

2. What We Know

The regulatory landscape governing media ownership in the United States has a complex history. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has historically imposed restrictions on media ownership to prevent monopolistic practices and ensure a diversity of viewpoints.

  • FCC Regulations: The FCC has set rules that limit the ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers to prevent a concentration of media power. For instance, the Supreme Court upheld these rules in FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting (1978), which confirmed the FCC's authority to restrict common ownership of radio and television stations and daily newspapers in the same market 25.

  • Changes in the 1990s: By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the FCC began to reconsider these restrictions. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 marked a significant shift, as it relaxed many ownership rules, including those concerning cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations 7.

  • Historical Context: The prohibition against cross-ownership was not absolute and varied by market and specific circumstances. In fact, there were instances where newspapers and television stations operated under common ownership in certain markets even before the 1990s 7.

3. Analysis

The claim that media companies were "forbidden" from owning both newspapers and television stations in the same market before the 1990s requires careful scrutiny of the historical context and regulatory framework.

  • Source Reliability: The sources cited, particularly those from the FCC 136, are authoritative as they represent official government positions and historical records. However, they may also reflect a bias towards the regulatory perspective, potentially downplaying the nuances of ownership practices that existed prior to the 1990s.

  • Legal Precedents: The legal cases cited, such as FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, provide a foundation for understanding the regulatory environment. However, these cases also illustrate that the application of ownership rules was not uniform across all markets, suggesting that the claim may oversimplify a more complex reality 25.

  • Conflicts of Interest: While the FCC is a regulatory body, it is also influenced by political and economic pressures, which can affect its rulings and the enforcement of ownership rules. This potential conflict of interest should be considered when evaluating the historical narrative surrounding media ownership.

  • Methodology and Evidence: The evidence supporting the claim relies heavily on legal rulings and regulatory changes. However, additional context regarding specific markets and ownership arrangements prior to the 1990s would enhance understanding. For instance, data on ownership patterns in various cities could clarify whether the prohibition was consistently enforced or if exceptions were common.

4. Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly False

The claim that media companies were strictly forbidden from owning both newspapers and television stations in the same market before the 1990s is mostly false. While there were regulations in place aimed at preventing such cross-ownership, these rules were not uniformly enforced across all markets, and exceptions did exist. The FCC's authority to impose restrictions was upheld in various legal cases, but the actual application of these rules varied, indicating a more nuanced reality than the claim suggests.

It is important to recognize that the regulatory landscape has evolved, particularly with the significant changes introduced by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which relaxed many of the previous restrictions. This context is crucial for understanding the complexities of media ownership prior to the 1990s.

However, the evidence available primarily consists of legal rulings and regulatory documents, which may not fully capture the intricacies of ownership practices in different markets. Therefore, while the claim is misleading, it is essential to approach this topic with an understanding of its historical context and the limitations of the evidence.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding media ownership and regulations, considering the complexities and variations that may exist beyond simplified claims.

5. Sources

  1. FCC Broadcast Ownership Rules - Federal Communications Commission. Link
  2. Regulation of the Media: Overview - LII / Legal Information Institute. Link
  3. Federal Register :: Broadcast Ownership Rules, Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers. Link
  4. Media Ownership Regulation, the First Amendment, and Democracy's Future. Link
  5. Overview of Regulation of the Media - Constitution Annotated. Link
  6. The Public and Broadcasting | Federal Communications Commission. Link
  7. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and US Media Ownership. Link
  8. U.S. MEDIA IN THE 1990s: Part II THE BROADCAST MEDIA. Link
  9. Media | Federal Communications Commission. Link
  10. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-117 Before ... Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Built on ancient Native American mounds near the meeting point of where the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers clash, the town sits at a natural crossroads. During the Civil War, that geography turned it into a vital Union stronghold. Mound City became home to one of the largest military hospitals in the West and served as a major naval station. Soldiers from both sides passed through some to recover, many not. It may be quiet now, but this place once pulsed with the urgency of life and death and sat at the crossroad of a nation at war with itself. That history lingers most clearly at the Mound City National Cemetery, just beyond the edge of town. I wasn’t expecting to find it, and I certainly wasn’t expecting the names etched into some of the stones. Two men in particular stood out, John Basil Turchin and Alexander Bielaski. Both born in the Russian Empire. Both connected to Abraham Lincoln. Both now buried here, far from where they began. John Basil Turchin (born Ivan Turchaninov) had once been a colonel in the Russian Imperial Army. He fought in the Crimean War before immigrating to the United States in 1856. When the Civil War broke out, he offered his experience to the Union cause with fierce conviction. His military background and abolitionist ideals caught Lincoln’s attention, and he was appointed a brigadier general, becoming the only Russian born general to serve in the Union Army. He died in 1901 and was laid to rest here, among the soldiers he once led, and some that he fought against.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Built on ancient Native American mounds near the meeting point of where the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers clash, the town sits at a natural crossroads. During the Civil War, that geography turned it into a vital Union stronghold. Mound City became home to one of the largest military hospitals in the West and served as a major naval station. Soldiers from both sides passed through some to recover, many not. It may be quiet now, but this place once pulsed with the urgency of life and death and sat at the crossroad of a nation at war with itself. That history lingers most clearly at the Mound City National Cemetery, just beyond the edge of town. I wasn’t expecting to find it, and I certainly wasn’t expecting the names etched into some of the stones. Two men in particular stood out, John Basil Turchin and Alexander Bielaski. Both born in the Russian Empire. Both connected to Abraham Lincoln. Both now buried here, far from where they began. John Basil Turchin (born Ivan Turchaninov) had once been a colonel in the Russian Imperial Army. He fought in the Crimean War before immigrating to the United States in 1856. When the Civil War broke out, he offered his experience to the Union cause with fierce conviction. His military background and abolitionist ideals caught Lincoln’s attention, and he was appointed a brigadier general, becoming the only Russian born general to serve in the Union Army. He died in 1901 and was laid to rest here, among the soldiers he once led, and some that he fought against.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Built on ancient Native American mounds near the meeting point of where the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers clash, the town sits at a natural crossroads. During the Civil War, that geography turned it into a vital Union stronghold. Mound City became home to one of the largest military hospitals in the West and served as a major naval station. Soldiers from both sides passed through some to recover, many not. It may be quiet now, but this place once pulsed with the urgency of life and death and sat at the crossroad of a nation at war with itself. That history lingers most clearly at the Mound City National Cemetery, just beyond the edge of town. I wasn’t expecting to find it, and I certainly wasn’t expecting the names etched into some of the stones. Two men in particular stood out, John Basil Turchin and Alexander Bielaski. Both born in the Russian Empire. Both connected to Abraham Lincoln. Both now buried here, far from where they began. John Basil Turchin (born Ivan Turchaninov) had once been a colonel in the Russian Imperial Army. He fought in the Crimean War before immigrating to the United States in 1856. When the Civil War broke out, he offered his experience to the Union cause with fierce conviction. His military background and abolitionist ideals caught Lincoln’s attention, and he was appointed a brigadier general, becoming the only Russian born general to serve in the Union Army. He died in 1901 and was laid to rest here, among the soldiers he once led, and some that he fought against.

Jul 30, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 News, Trump said there was nothing he could do but it was Mexico who stepped up to save lives. While the flood waters swept away homes, families and hope in South Texas, the governor appeared on television, his voice shaking saying his hands were tied that he had no resources, no way to help but someone did. From across the river, without cameras, without promises, hundreds of Mexican rescuers crossed over on their own. They came with backpacks on their shoulders, trained dogs by their side, and hearts full of faith. They didn't wait for orders, they didn't ask for permission. They just heard the cry of a neighbor and they answered and now, in the mud and of cities like Laredo, 00:31 Eagle Pass and Mission, the loudest voices aren't speaking English. They're speaking Spanish, Mexican voices saying, hold on, we're here because while Trump locks himself in his office and the governor throws his hands up to the sky, Mexico is waste deep in the water pulling people out alive. Today, Texas faces its worst climate disaster in years. The first to react was not Trump. But the people arrested in the United States. So ask yourself if you believe Trump's immigration policies are wrong. Drop a thank you Mexico in the comments and share the story before politics buries it.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 News, Trump said there was nothing he could do but it was Mexico who stepped up to save lives. While the flood waters swept away homes, families and hope in South Texas, the governor appeared on television, his voice shaking saying his hands were tied that he had no resources, no way to help but someone did. From across the river, without cameras, without promises, hundreds of Mexican rescuers crossed over on their own. They came with backpacks on their shoulders, trained dogs by their side, and hearts full of faith. They didn't wait for orders, they didn't ask for permission. They just heard the cry of a neighbor and they answered and now, in the mud and of cities like Laredo, 00:31 Eagle Pass and Mission, the loudest voices aren't speaking English. They're speaking Spanish, Mexican voices saying, hold on, we're here because while Trump locks himself in his office and the governor throws his hands up to the sky, Mexico is waste deep in the water pulling people out alive. Today, Texas faces its worst climate disaster in years. The first to react was not Trump. But the people arrested in the United States. So ask yourself if you believe Trump's immigration policies are wrong. Drop a thank you Mexico in the comments and share the story before politics buries it.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 News, Trump said there was nothing he could do but it was Mexico who stepped up to save lives. While the flood waters swept away homes, families and hope in South Texas, the governor appeared on television, his voice shaking saying his hands were tied that he had no resources, no way to help but someone did. From across the river, without cameras, without promises, hundreds of Mexican rescuers crossed over on their own. They came with backpacks on their shoulders, trained dogs by their side, and hearts full of faith. They didn't wait for orders, they didn't ask for permission. They just heard the cry of a neighbor and they answered and now, in the mud and of cities like Laredo, 00:31 Eagle Pass and Mission, the loudest voices aren't speaking English. They're speaking Spanish, Mexican voices saying, hold on, we're here because while Trump locks himself in his office and the governor throws his hands up to the sky, Mexico is waste deep in the water pulling people out alive. Today, Texas faces its worst climate disaster in years. The first to react was not Trump. But the people arrested in the United States. So ask yourself if you believe Trump's immigration policies are wrong. Drop a thank you Mexico in the comments and share the story before politics buries it.

Jul 21, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v
Partially True

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Trump's ex- wife Ivana wasn't an American citizen until 1988. She gave birth to Don Jr in 1977, Ivanka in 19Jeffrey Epstein Was Recorded Talking About Trump Before His Arrest Before he died under mysterious circumstances, Jeffrey Epstein was recorded talking about Donald Trump — and what he said was damning. In an audio recording released by journalist Michael Wolff, Epstein described how Trump manipulated his own team inside the White House. The conversation, recorded...81, & Eric in 1984. Let's cancel their birthright citizen ship first. -Andrea Junker
True

Fact Check: Trump's ex- wife Ivana wasn't an American citizen until 1988. She gave birth to Don Jr in 1977, Ivanka in 19Jeffrey Epstein Was Recorded Talking About Trump Before His Arrest Before he died under mysterious circumstances, Jeffrey Epstein was recorded talking about Donald Trump — and what he said was damning. In an audio recording released by journalist Michael Wolff, Epstein described how Trump manipulated his own team inside the White House. The conversation, recorded...81, & Eric in 1984. Let's cancel their birthright citizen ship first. -Andrea Junker

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Trump's ex- wife Ivana wasn't an American citizen until 1988. She gave birth to Don Jr in 1977, Ivanka in 19Jeffrey Epstein Was Recorded Talking About Trump Before His Arrest Before he died under mysterious circumstances, Jeffrey Epstein was recorded talking about Donald Trump — and what he said was damning. In an audio recording released by journalist Michael Wolff, Epstein described how Trump manipulated his own team inside the White House. The conversation, recorded...81, & Eric in 1984. Let's cancel their birthright citizen ship first. -Andrea Junker

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’
Partially True

Fact Check: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Before the 1990s in the United States, media companies were forbidden to own both newspapers and tel... | TruthOrFake Blog