First, he DID say, after the “Jews will not replace us” march, and intentional murder of a counter-protestor that there were “very fine people on both sides.” So he DID say that. The statement that he did not say that is false. Note:
Editors’ Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump’s characterization was wrong.
Secondly, Snopes has apparently incorporated the trump administration’s walk-back of that to say yeah he didn’t know they were all nazis.
While I disagree with that analysis, it is laid out plainly that that’s how they arrived at the true/false determination of what this demented sociopath meant.
Which is - imo wrong, but fair. Identifying an address that matches the address of alleged shooter is simply comparing two empirical values. So while I disagree with the ‘both sides’ analysis I think there’s room for them to claim it was false, unlike the donation address matching the shooter’s address.
They are probably referring to this:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Yeah, a couple of problems with it though:
First, he DID say, after the “Jews will not replace us” march, and intentional murder of a counter-protestor that there were “very fine people on both sides.” So he DID say that. The statement that he did not say that is false. Note:
Secondly, Snopes has apparently incorporated the trump administration’s walk-back of that to say yeah he didn’t know they were all nazis.
While I disagree with that analysis, it is laid out plainly that that’s how they arrived at the true/false determination of what this demented sociopath meant.
Which is - imo wrong, but fair. Identifying an address that matches the address of alleged shooter is simply comparing two empirical values. So while I disagree with the ‘both sides’ analysis I think there’s room for them to claim it was false, unlike the donation address matching the shooter’s address.