Main Snopes Fact-Checker Is A Self-Described Liberal Who Called Tea Partiers ‘Teahadists’

I used to view Snopes as a relatively reputable source– a website devoted to putting rumors to rest. What a noble cause, right?

But lately,  Snopes has been giving off more of a failed left-wing blog kinda vibe.

Now it all makes sense.

As it turns out, one of Snopes’ main political fact-checkers is a self-described liberal named Kim LaCapria. Prior to working for Snopes, LaCapria worked at Inquisitr, a website widely known for publishing fake quotes and spreading hoaxes.

She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

She once said the Bush administration was “at least guilty of criminal negligence” for 9/11. Another time, she wrote about Lena Dunham’s controversial Obama ad and said she could imagine it “simultaneously enrage, freak out, disgust, horrify and frighten the party of legitimate rape.”

The Republican Party is the party of “legitimate rape.” Snopes’ political fact-checker wrote that.

You and I both now she didn’t suddenly become a middle-of-the-road journalist before taking a job at Snopes. Her positions haven’t changed. She’s simply more sneaky about it, and she’s probably incredibly excited because she writes for the most legit website in the entire universe, which means people FINALLY have to take her seriously and she means it!

Now, LaCapria spends her days having aneurysms over people pointing out the fact that Hillary Clinton is a big, fat hypocrite, wearing incredibly pricey Armani jackets while giving speeches on income inequality.

The Daily Caller explains what she’s been up to lately.

Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.

 

After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”

 

Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”

Remember that huge meeting Facebook had with top conservatives? It was for no reason whatsoever. Big fat rumor. That’s all.

It sounds like all of her conclusions are– dare I say it– not factual.

Snopes isn’t completely reliable. Pass it along.