All pretence is gone. Talk about "naked (crony) capitalism".
OTOH, there is a legitimate point that the messaging was not updated after the $600 stimulus passed, and after that point one could (especially if they were not aware of the same actor’s advocacy prior) reasonably interpret it as a call for a third, $2,000, payment.
But most of the objections aren’t from people in that position, but from people people in the $600 camp or in the left-of-Biden monthly recurring payment camp.
I think “mostly false” is accurate, but I can also see why people might reasonably disagree as to where in the space [0] of neither-completely-true-nor-completely-false statements this falls; I don’t think “mostly true” would be reasonable, but I could definitely see “mixture” or, perhaps, if one reads “misled” as a fact claim of general effect on people recieving the claim, “unproven”.
[0] see ratings definitions here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/
There was never a camp that was pushing for BOTH a $600 check and a $2000 check.
They did not secure power in the White House and Senate in time to change the $600 check to a $2000 check. So instead they sent an additional $1400 check.
Would it have been ideal from their perspective to have gotten things done in time so that people only got one check? Sure. Do I view their inability to do so, especially in light of them making good on the total amount, as an indication of lying and misleading people? No.
Situations change. They made good on the total amount. You can claim that they technically lied because it took two checks instead of one, but I'd say at that point you're more worried about scoring points on technicalities than caring about the actual end result.
Calling fact checking dead because they chose to look at the whole picture, while still taking the time to note the technicalities, is incredibly short sighted or incredibly partisan.
