Hillary Clinton's impossible challenge: Fact-checking Donald Trump at the debate
Trump will lie like crazy at Monday's debate. How can Clinton possibly respond?


When Donald Trump came out last Friday and finally gave up his long effort to convince people of the lie that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than the United States — and in the process told two more brazen lies, that Hillary Clinton and her 2008 campaign started the birther controversy, and "I finished it" — some news organizations had plainly had enough.
They described the event using blunt terms of a kind they ordinarily shy away from, saying not merely that Trump "strayed from the truth" or "made a claim at odds with the facts" but simply that he "lied." As New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet later told Quartz, "we have decided to be more direct in calling things out when a candidate actually lies." Many of his colleagues are feeling the same way.
This didn't happen just because the particular lies Trump told were so blatant and obvious. It came after over a year in which Trump proved himself to be nothing less than the most dishonest candidate in living memory, by an incalculable margin.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Which raises an immediate question for his opponent Hillary Clinton. On Monday, the two candidates will meet for their first debate, one that could be among the most watched in history. How is she going to react when Trump lies?
Because he will, of that there's no doubt. It's possible that at some point in the debate, Clinton will say something untrue. But it is an absolute certainty that Donald Trump will not only lie, but will lie multiple times. He is constitutionally incapable of doing otherwise. I'm fairly certain that there has not been a single speech or event in this campaign where he didn't say things that were obviously, demonstrably untrue. One journalist, Daniel Dale, has made documenting Trump's lies something of a hobby; to take an example, he counted 12 different lies Trump told just on Monday.
This is what he does. Trump lies about big things and small things, about himself and other people, about the past and the future. And while Trump's unending stream of falsehood has led some news organizations to attempt fact-checking him on the fly, it's unlikely that the debate moderators will do so. The moderator of the final debate, Fox News' Chris Wallace, has already said, "I do not believe that it's my job to be a truth squad. It's up to the other person to catch them on that." The other moderators will probably take the same approach. Which means we could have a lot of exchanges that sound like this:
Trump: I was totally against the war in Iraq.Clinton: No you weren't. You told Howard Stern you supported it, and that was the only public comment you made before the war began. It wasn't until the war started going badly that you began criticizing it. Every independent fact-checker has examined this claim, and they all say you're not telling the truth.Trump: What, a bunch of dishonest liberal media types? Pshaw. I was totally against it. It was in all the papers. The Bush administration was so worried about how vocal I was, they sent a delegation to beg me to be quiet.Clinton: That's ludicrous. Do you have one iota of evidence you can show us to prove that ever happened?Trump: It happened, believe me. I was against it, you were for it, end of story.
Now let's imagine you're a member of the audience, and you didn't actually know what the truth was. What would you conclude? Trump says one thing, Clinton says something else. Who knows?
That's precisely how Trump gets away with so much dishonesty: Most people don't read fact-checks, and even if they hear a reporter say Trump isn't telling the truth, they'll discount it if they like him. He also gets backup from his allies. For instance, after his birther event, Republicans fanned out to repeat the lie about Clinton being the first one to question Obama's birthplace; every Sunday show that weekend featured some Republican saying confidently that the whole thing really was started by her. No matter how many times the shows' hosts contradicted them, they plowed right ahead, insisting it was true.
And while they may not have been able to convince everyone, they've probably convinced most Republicans to go along with this new story. That's how information and positions get spread: The elite of the party, like politicians and media figures, repeats an idea over and over, and as their partisans in the rank and file hear it coming from the figures they trust, they adopt it as their own. For those in the middle, it's just one more dispute between the parties, and the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.
Right now Hillary Clinton is busily preparing for the debate, practicing, going over briefing books, and devising strategies with her advisers. But has she come up with an answer to this conundrum? When faced with an opponent who will happily lie and won't care if he gets corrected, what do you do?
I wish I had the answer to that question, but I don't. Of course, I also don't have an army of pollsters and staff at my disposal whom I can order to figure it out. But one thing Clinton should understand is that she can't count on the press coming to her defense afterward.
In ordinary elections, post-debate coverage plays a key role in determining how we understand what happened. Reporters home in on a few moments that were supposed to be decisive (particularly the key "gaffes") and repeat them over and over, leaving those moments to be all anyone remembers of the debate. But it might not be the same this year, even if there are plentiful fact-checks and explanations.
That's because Trump is unlike any other candidate we've seen. He isn't chastened when he's caught lying, and he isn't shy about creating an alternate reality in which his supporters will live. As soon as the debate ends, he will proudly tell reporters that all the polls are saying he won (even if no polls have been taken yet), and everybody is telling him how great he did. And the people supporting him will lap up every word, no matter what a bunch of lowdown anti-Trump journalists tell them. After all, it's the journalists who are the liars, right? Donald Trump is the only one you can really trust.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for The Washington Post. His writing has appeared in dozens of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, and he is the author or co-author of four books on media and politics.
-
DVT: what to know about the blood clot plaguing NBA players
The Explainer Multiple players have been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis over the past few months
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
Is Elon Musk's DOGE job coming to an end?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION Plummeting popularity, a stinging electoral defeat, and Tesla's shrinking market share could be pulling the tech billionaire out of Trump's presidential orbit
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
What does Health and Human Services do?
The Explainer Cuts will 'dramatically alter' public health in America
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
By The Week Staff Published
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published