“Jerry Nadler, one of the most disgusting Congressmen in USA History is, at long last, calling it quits – Hes finally leaving Congress! Ive been beating this bum for 40 years, first as a New York City developer, where he opposed me, for no reason, at every corner, but could NEVER stop me from getting the job done, and then, as your President, where this psychopathic nut job, together with Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Impeached me twice, AND LOST, wasting Millions of Dollars in time and taxpayer money. It will be a great day for the U.S.A. when Nadler, a pathetic lightweight, is out of office and leaves our beautiful, and NOW VERY SAFE, Washington, D.C. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DJT” @realDonaldTrump

Fact-Check Summary

The post accurately states that Rep. Jerry Nadler is retiring from Congress, and correctly identifies a decades-long political rivalry with Donald Trump dating back to the mid-1980s. The narrative about Nadler’s opposition to Trump’s NYC development is grounded in fact, but the claim that Nadler “could NEVER stop” Trump is misleading, as historical records show substantial modifications to Trump’s original plans due to opposition, including Nadler’s efforts. The reference to two impeachment proceedings aligns with Congressional records, though the assertion that Nadler and Pelosi “lost” and “wasted millions” is a partisan interpretation of a constitutional process, not a factual statement. The personal insults, derogatory language, and claims about DC being “very safe” are either unverifiable, subjective, or rhetorical in nature. The post blends factual elements, misleading characterizations, and inflammatory rhetoric.

Belief Alignment Analysis

The post fails to uphold democratic values of civility, public reason, and inclusion, instead relying on personal attacks, divisive rhetoric, and hyperbole. The language used—referring to Nadler as “disgusting,” “bum,” “psychopathic nut job,” and a “pathetic lightweight”—breaches norms of constructive civic discourse and undermines trust in democratic institutions. The framing of impeachment as an unequivocal “loss” ignores the procedural legitimacy and democratic responsibility of Congressional oversight. Such rhetoric perpetuates division and detracts from the fair consideration of facts, weakening the foundations of public dialogue and respect for pluralistic democracy.

Opinion

While the announcement of Rep. Nadler’s retirement and the history of conflict with Trump are based on verifiable facts, the post is dominated by personal vitriol, misleading framing, and exaggerations that undermine fact-based debate. Democratic procedures like impeachment are foundational to checks and balances, not mere political “losses.” The post serves more to inflame than to inform, detracting from reasoned, inclusive, and productive public conversation.

TLDR

Nadler is retiring—fact. He clashed with Trump for decades—fact. Trump exaggerates his victories, misstates the nature of impeachment, and uses divisive and derogatory language—mostly hyperbole and misleading. The post contains some truths but is mostly skewed by partisan opinion and inflammatory rhetoric.

Claim: Jerry Nadler is quitting Congress after decades of opposing Trump, always failing to stop him, and together with Nancy Pelosi, lost two impeachments wasting millions in taxpayer money. DC is now very safe.

Fact: Nadler is retiring; he and Trump have had public conflicts since the 1980s, with Nadler sometimes successfully blocking parts of Trump’s projects. Trump was impeached twice under Pelosi and Nadler’s leadership. Impeachment is a constitutional process, not a “loss” or waste. Claims about DC’s safety are unverifiable here.

Opinion: The post is filled with inflammatory language and distortions that undermine democratic dialogue and factual accuracy, prioritizing personal attacks over reasoned analysis.

TruthScore: 4

True: Nadler is retiring; the existence of a multi-decade conflict; two impeachments did occur.

Hyperbole: Claims that Nadler never stopped Trump, that impeachment was an unequivocal “loss,” that millions were wasted, and that DC is “very safe.” Use of insults and loaded language.

Lies: No direct lies, but multiple misleading assertions and exaggerated framing.