Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t help but inject herself – and her failed presidential aspirations – into a speech commemorating the brutal clash between peaceful civil rights protesters and state troopers in Selma, Alabama.
Clinton claimed she lost the critical state of Wisconsin to Donald Trump because racist poll workers systematically disenfranchised tens of thousands of black voters.
The Washington Post fact checker gave Clinton “four Pinocchios” for being “wrong on multiple levels.”
“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act and I will tell you it made it makes a really big difference and it doesn’t make a difference in Alabama and Georgia, it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting,” Clinton claimed on Sunday.
The pathological Clinton went on to blame the Supreme Court for, in her words, “gutting” the Voting Rights Act.
According to the Post, it was wrong to blame the Supreme Court decision for Wisconsin voter turnout in 2016:
In 2013, the Supreme Court in a 5-to-4 decision struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act…Wisconsin was not one of the states covered by Section 4 when the court ruled in 2013, so, right off the bat, Clinton’s claim that this “made a difference in Wisconsin” is unfounded. Georgia was covered by Section 4, but Clinton’s claim that total voter registration declined in that state from 2012 to 2016 is false; it increased.
Noting Wisconsin did enact a voter ID laws prior to the 2016 election, the Post stated the surveys Clinton referred to did not say they were turned away from the polls, but rather they were “deterred, meaning ‘they lack qualifying ID or mention ID as a reason for not voting. Voter ID could be a nominal reason or the primary reason for not voting.’”
“Wrong on multiple levels, seriously misleading, and worth a cumulative Four Pinocchios,” the Post’s Salvador Rizzo concluded.