re: #164 Killgore Trout

I disagree. The evidence provided didn’t support the claims in the ads. It would be a logical fallacy require a fact checker to prove a negative (eg. “Mitt never worked for Bain past ‘99’). He checked the evidence provided for the positive claims in the adds and found them unconvincing.

What do you think would happen if they fact checked Romney’s claim that he had “no involvement” with Bain past 99?