You're debunking things I never claimed, nor did the article. This is another highly disingenuous tactic used by MSM. "He did say it, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, and it certainly doesn't mean anything we don't want it to mean." Yes, context is important, but it isn't partly false at all, as a matter of fact the way the "fact check" is worded is an obvious attempt to muddy the water and change the context. If you actually read the article, you'd know they made no claims about him controlling or being top boss. I trust MSM fact checks about as much as you trust neon nettle. It's not partly false... what's partly false is USA Today implying that anyone made these claims.