The following is a fact-check of the May 16, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL  | The recently passed student loan bill will result in the loss of 31,000 private sector jobs – FALSE

SEN. McCONNELL: They nationalized the student loan business, which will kill 31,000 private sector jobs.

Fact-check.org handled this back in March, we’ve look at their research and agree with their analysis. Sen. McConnell’s statement is FALSE.

From crowd-sourcer James’ summary of what FactCheck.org found:

First, that 35,000 number came from an report sponsored by National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Education Finance Council and the Student Loan Servicing Alliance – they have as yet refused to make the data available. In fact, the total number of jobs, including jobs in India and elsewhere abroad, is 35,000. According to the FactCheck analysis, the legislation would result in anywhere between a net gain of 300 jobs to a net loss of 4,750 jobs, a far cry from 35,000.

Special thanks to crowd-sourcer James for assisting with this fact-check.

This fact-check took a combined 35 minutes.

The following is a fact-check of the May 16, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY)  | Elena Kagan’s solicitor office argued it would be OK to ban books, then she argued herself that it would be OK to ban pamphlets – MOSTLY TRUE (but highly misleading)

SEN. McCONNELL: Solicitor Kagan’s office in the initial hearing argued that it’d be OK to ban books. And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself, in her first Supreme Court argument, suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.

After reading through the argument transcripts and analysis by our crowd-sourcer Andy and by FactCheck.org, we have come to conclusion that Senator McConnell’s statement is MOSTLY TRUE but highly misleading. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart originally argued it would be OK to prohibit the publication of a book that was paid for with corporate funds and advocated for a political candidate. Does this fit the literal meaning of “banning books”? Yes. However, Stewart also had this exchange with Justice Alito:

(Supreme Court Argument Transcript [08-205] pg.27)

JUSTICE ALITO: That’s pretty incredible. You think that if — if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?

MR. STEWART: I’m not saying it could be banned. I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its PAC.

So in this case he is saying that the issue is not about banning books as much as it is about prohibiting the use of corporate treasury funds for books which express advocacy, that those books must instead be paid for using a PAC. This is hardly the typical meaning of the term “banning books.”

Later on Kagan reargued their position, and focused not on the books but the pamphlets.

Supreme Court Argument Transcript [ 08-205 Reargued ] pg.48:

GENERAL KAGAN: …when corporations use other people’s money to electioneer, that is a harm not just to the shareholders themselves but a sort of a broader harm to the public that comes from distortion of the electioneering that is done by corporations.

Supreme Court Argument Transcript [ 08-205 Reargued ] pg.66:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But we don’t put our — we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats; and if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?

GENERAL KAGAN: I think a — a pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that 441 b only applies to video and not to print. It does —

and then later:

Supreme Court Argument Transcript [ 08-205 Reargued ] pg.67:

GENERAL KAGAN: [W]hat we’re saying is that there has never been an enforcement action for books. Nobody has ever suggested — nobody in Congress, nobody in the administrative apparatus has ever suggested that books pose any kind of corruption problem.

So Kagan did argue that pamphlets could be prohibited but it was under the same very specific context outlined by Mr. Stewart, and both also argued moments later that in fact the materials could not be banned. We are not legal experts regarding the nuance of these kinds of arguments, but it seems like a stretch that to argue in any broad sense that either Stewart or Kagan were “OK with the banning of books”.  Regardless however, they did make arguments consistent with Sen. McConnell’s statement, so we have concluded it was MOSTLY TRUE (but highly misleading).

Disagree with our assessment? This was a tricky one, so let’s hear your analysis in the comments…

Special thanks to crowd-sourcer Andy for assisting with this fact-check

This fact check took a combined 4.5 hours.

The following is a fact-check of the May 16, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY) | The Obama admin. will have doubled the national debt in the next 5 years, triple it in 10 – TRUE

SEN. McCONNELL: They’ve doubled the national debt in the last–will double the national debt in the next five years, triple it in 10.

Politifact checked the same statement made by Judd Gregg and here is what they had to say:

To check the claim, we relied on an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, released on March 20. The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, projects that the national debt will go from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $11.8 trillion by the end of 2013; and to $17.3 trillion in 2019. By that count, Gregg’s claim of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in 10 years, is correct.

Politifact used the CBO’s estimate of the President’s budget, and according to the estimate, the national debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10. Therefore, we find Sen. Mitch McConnell’s statement TRUE.

Special thanks to crowd-sourcer James for assisting with this fact-check.

This fact-check took a combined  1 hour.

The following is a fact-check of the May 16, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY) | The US receives 30% of it’s oil from the Gulf of Mexico

If McConnell meant 30% of US crude oil consumption – FALSE
If McConnell meant 30% of US domestic crude oil production – TRUE

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY) | W/o GOM crude oil, gas would be $14 (a gallon) – UNCONFIRMABLE

SEN. McCONNELL: As horrible as this is, it’s important to remember that we get 30 percent of our oil from the Gulf and, if you shut that down, you’d have $14 gasoline.

So we are going to try something new with this fact-check. Because Sen. McConnell’s statement is vague enough to be misleading, we have fact-checked both possible meanings of it, which hinge on what the definition of “our” is. If Sen. McConnell means that 30% of the crude oil that the US consumes comes from the Gulf of Mexico, then his statement is FALSE. If Sen McConnell means that 30% of the crude oil that the US produces comes from the Gulf of Mexico, then his statement is TRUE.

According to the US Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/special/gulf/gulf_fact_sheet.html

The entire US domestic production of crude oil accounted for 28% of US liquid fuel consumption in 2009.
Gulf of Mexico crude oil production accounted for 8% of US liquid fuel consumption in 2009.
Gulf of Mexico crude oil production accounted for 30% of overall US crude oil production in 2009 (and makes up  19% of US reserves).

Another interesting fact from crowd-sourcer kcars1:

In addition, US has only 2.2% of the world oil reserves and GOM accounts for 19%, so GOM accounts for 0.42% of world reserves. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo…

Regarding the $14 a gallon gasoline, we were unable to find data to back up or refute that. That also means we were unable to find the data Sen. McConnell would be able to use to cite that number. Additionally, if GOM crude oil production equals only 8% of total US liquid fuel consumption, it seems unlikely that the loss of that 8% would result in a 466% increase in gasoline prices. (Gas currently averages around $3/gal) Regardless, until more information can be found or made available, Sen. McConnell’s statement cannot be confirmed at this time.

Special thanks to crowd-sourcers kcars1 and Joshua for assisting with this fact-check.

This fact-check took a combined 2.5 hours.

The following is a fact-check of the May 16, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY) | Elena Kagan took the position that military recruiters should not be allowed at HLS and the Supreme Court decided 8-0 against that position – TRUE

SEN. McCONNELL: Secondly is the issue of the military recruitment at Harvard.  She took the position that Harvard should not allow military recruiters at the law school, later supported that position in a decision in the–in a, in a case in the court system that ended up with the Supreme Court ruling 8-to-nothing against the position that she took.

So Politifact looked at this one last week when analyzing a statement made by John Barrasso on Fox News. Their research and conclusion (TRUE on both) are sound. Key quote:

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed in an 8-0 ruling on March 6, 2006. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled against FAIR and, in doing so, rejected the claims of Kagan and the other law professors that the school had the right to enforce non-discrimination policies against the military. “Under the statute, military recruiters must be given the same access as recruiters who comply with the policy,” the opinion said.

Senator McConnell is correct on both, his statements are TRUE.

UPDATE: Here is some interesting additional analysis from commenter wesmorgan1

Special thanks to crowd-sourcer SLBinVA for assisiting with this fact-check.

This fact-check took a combined 15 minutes.

The following is a fact-check of the May 16, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY) | Pres. Obama, VP Biden, Sen. Harry Reid, & Sen. Patrick Leahy filibustered the S.C. nomination of Sam Alito – TRUE

SEN. McCONNELL: the way Sam Alito was, who was filibustered by the president, the vice president, the Democratic leader and the chairman of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I’ve never filibustered a Supreme Court nomination.

From crowd-sourcer James:

In 2006, Senator John Kerry along with Obama, Biden, Reid and Leahy (at the time the ranking member of the Judiciary) did mount a brief but unsucessful filibuster of Alito’s nomination. Here is the link to the cloture vote:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Page 2 of this pdf by the Congressional Research Service has detailed information and history on cloture attempts on nominations. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32878.pdf

James’ research and conclusion is sound. Senator McConnell’s statement gets a TRUE.

This fact-check took a combined 20 minutes.