Clinton camp weaponizes fact-checks at first debate

Lester Holt, the debate’s moderator, pushed back on Trump in six different exchanges — most notably, when Trump floated “stop and frisk” policies as a solution to gun violence in Chicago.

And much of the post-debate punditry was characterized by a focus on the “fact-checking” that caught dozens of Trump’s exaggerations and inaccuracies throughout the evening.

The Clinton camp’s efforts to impose a “fact-check” frame on the debate, in which anything less than active policing of Trump’s truthfulness would be considered biased toward the GOP nominee, offered more benefits to the former secretary of state than just the check on her opponent’s words.

Analysts watched the action Monday night through the lens of a “fact checker,” not a traditional observer. The focus on “facts,” or lack thereof, allowed much of the media to disregard Trump’s style and message in order to search for a set of facts that would contradict those laid out by the real estate mogul.

For example, Clinton lambasted Trump for avoiding “facts” after he offered a scathing indictment of her inaction on trade and her husband’s approval of NAFTA.

“Incomes went up for everybody,” Clinton said. “Manufacturing jobs went up also in the 1990s, if we’re actually going to look at the facts.”

The facts suggest manufacturing jobs did indeed fall, by 4.4 percent, between 1989 and 1999.

Shortly afterward, Clinton dismissed Trump’s assertion that she had flip-flopped on trade by discrediting his facts.

“Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts,” Clinton said. “The facts are — I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated … which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn’t.”

Clinton did in fact call the Trans-Pacific Partnership the “gold standard” of trade deals, and came out against it only after Sen. Bernie Sanders mounted a fierce primary challenge that centered on his opposition to the deal. Politifact, one of several fact checkers cited by the Clinton campaign, concluded she had made a full flip-flop on TPP.

But Clinton’s statements did not invite the same robust, real-time verification that met Trump’s performance.

As the source of the fact-check frenzy, the Clinton campaign seemingly spared itself from the scrutiny heaped on the Trump campaign before the candidates even left the stage.

What’s more, the fact-check frame imposed on the debate by Clinton was difficult for the Trump team to rebut.

Opposing the use of facts is a losing argument for any campaign, but especially for one already plagued by accusations of unseriousness and weighed down by past controversial statements.

Chris Christie demonstrated the pitfalls of that approach Monday evening when, in a post-debate interview with MSNBC, he railed against “fact checkers” who “have an agenda,” an argument that quickly drew criticism. The Trump surrogate and New Jersey governor also dismissively admitted that Trump might have gotten some of his facts wrong during the debate.