In Thursday’s episode of Democrats Sure Got It Good! we explore how the far-left PolitiFact defends Democrat presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris for falsely accusing a police officer of murder.

PolitiFact, which has never found a single thing — not one thing! — Warren has said to be dishonest (not even all that fake Indian stuff), writes of Kamala and Warren’s lie, “Because the significance of Harris’ and Warrens’ use of the word [“murder”] is open to some dispute, we won’t be rating their tweets on the Truth-O-meter.”

Did you get all that? You see, when it comes to Democrats, if there’s a dispute over a FACT, that FACT is no longer a FACT, so Pocahontas gets to keep her perfect record.

Did I mention how good Democrats got it?

Anyway…

Here is what Warren wrote about police officer Darren Wilson, who was completely cleared after witnesses (many of them black) and forensic evidence proved he shot and killed Michael Brown in self-defense:

5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019

“5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri,” Warren tweeted last week.

Here is what Harris wrote about this police officer, who was completely cleared by Barack Obama’s own Justice Department:

Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 9, 2019

“Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America,” Harris also tweeted last week.

“Murder” is a legal term. Within this context, no semantics exist around the word “murder.” And even the corrupt Obama administration, which very much wanted to lynch this white cop, couldn’t make a case for anything other than self-defense.

So America’s phony establishment media fact checkers are going to do that for them, are actually willing to create a semantic argument to protect the Democrat Party and only the Democrat Party because… Oh, you’re going to love this…

When a Republican accurately points out that abortion kills more black people than anything else (there is not even a close second place), PolitiFact all of a sudden gets very super-duper-literal about what the word “kill” means and awards that Republican a “mostly false.”

Why?

You have to read this to believe it:

[T]he CDC doesn’t say abortions kill babies; it defines a “legal induced abortion” as “an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (e.g., a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) that is intended to terminate an ongoing pregnancy.”

You see, “kill” doesn’t mean “kill” when a Republican says it; it means “intervention performed by a licensed clinician that is intended to terminate your pants, which are, indeed, on fire.”

But when a Democrat uses the word “murder” — well, that’s a completely different story because, come on, let’s not get all pedantic about the word “murder” and bruise Fauxahontas’s perfect record…

My favorite part is the Grandmama part:

“There are clear instances of unjustifiable police killings of black men that amounted to murder,” [University of Missouri School of Law’s Frank O.] Bowman said. “If that’s the point one wants to make, one should do one’s homework and get the law and the facts right.” Some legal experts argued that there’s a difference between being legally precise and using language more informally. “When my grandmother read the newspaper, she would sometimes blurt, ‘It’s a crime!’ in response to a story,” said Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor. “Everyone present realized that she did not literally mean that someone described in the article had violated a criminal statute. It seems at least possible that (Harris and Warren) wished to convey a sentiment like my grandmother once did and did not intend to apply the criminal law of Missouri as one might on a law school exam.” Finally, some cautioned that over-analyzing legal terminology can obscure the discussion of larger issues.

So PolitiFact dug up a couple of Missouri professors to helpfully explain that when a couple of sitting U.S. senators and presidential candidates affirmatively state that an innocent man is guilty of murder, they could not possibly be lying because of OTHER instances of unjustified shootings, because somebody’s got a grandma, because “over-analyzing legal terminology can obscure the discussion of larger issues.”

More proof that the media’s thoroughly discredited fact checking racket is a total left-wing scam.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.