I usually do not respond to fact-checkers. They are the most agenda-driven, progressive partisans in the press. They do not seek facts but advance progressive talking points. Fact-checkers came about as a last-ditch effort for the American press corps to try to maintain some level of credibility with an increasingly incredulous public that itself could fact-check the press.

But this one, I think I need to respond to. …

First, I would like to, for the record, criticize the ethics of The Hill for allowing a reporter who has staked out a position and an editorial view in an article to also serve separately as a fact-checker of those with whom she disagrees. But given The Hill’s history, I’m not surprised. Until January, I maintained a multi-year policy on my radio program of not citing The Hill. In fact, it is one of the very few publications I refuse to cite because of its long-standing behavior on social media of salacious tweets that seemingly mischaracterized underlying stories as a way to drive traffic to its website.

[Be sure to read it all. The Hill normally just regurgitates the latest talking-head conversations, but this “fact check” effort is especially egregious.. — Ed]