Hillary Clinton: Lootergate (2001)
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $190,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had taken. Again, there's a lot of "weeds" as to whether gifts were given to them personally or the Whitehouse, how big personal gifts are allowed to be, but the end result is always that nothing like this ever happened to any President before, even the classless ones. And the Clintons water carriers in the media fake "Fact Checked" this and tried to exonerate the Clintons by word parsing or misleading the public on what happened.
The gimmick is instead of checking the facts, they like to take the most extreme meme that claims something materially true (but technically wrong in some way), then spend all the times on nits and distractions, instead of what the readers care about most which is the fact that she stole (not the exact amount). So, "Hillary stole $200K when she left the Whitehouse" and they parse words like what does "steal" mean. Does it mean taking things that weren't yours and not reporting it, or does it mean gifts she wasn't entitled to? And it was only $190K+ not $200K, they only had to return part of it, ad other hand-waiving distractions. (And they ignore the context of it happened twice: and ignore Hillary Clinton: Lootergate (2012) and didn't bother to go back and revise/correct. So it's a lie of tone, omission, and distraction.
- Snopes, "Mostly False" -- yes, she stole, but it was only $190,027 in dispute, not $200,000... and besides they paid $86,000 back. Ooops + an additional $28,000 that they'd underreported the first time they promised to behave better. + they returned $50,000 in merchandise.  So $162K is nothing like $200K.
- Politifact plays the same game. "Mostly False" because a meme replied she had to return $200K of stuff, and she only had to pay for it... and besides it wasn't "theft" (that's hyperbolic) since while they took something that wasn't theirs, they said they were taking it, thus it's magically not theft. Oh, and in a completely unrelated distraction, the IRS went after Nancy Reagan for $25K in unreported gowns once. (Talk about hand-waiving distractions). PolitiFact also said it was only $134K (and missed the other $28K that Snopes found), so they got their math wrong. But their excuse is $162K is not $200K thus the meme that the Clinton's steal is mostly false. Right?
- Factcheck seems to blow it completely. They call it "Furniture Flap" so people searching will have a harder time finding it, but they have plausible deniability? And they only talk about the $28K amount, not the $86K and $50K returns. Again, their readers are more ignorant if they think they know the full story.<ref>FactCheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/the-clinton-furniture-flap/<ref>