I clicked on your last link. Then clicked on the fact checker link that was in the article. Know what I found interesting?
First one:
Trump tweet: “Richard Cordray will let you down, just like he did when he destroyed the government agency that he ran.”
Their answer: Cordray, who is running for Ohio governor, was the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It's hard to understand how he could destroy something that had not even existed before.
So because he was the first director of an agency they're finding it hard to understand how he could "destroy" something that had not even existed before? Was he or was he not a director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? And is there or is there not scandals involving bureaucratic overreach, gender and racial discrimination, funneling taxpayer funds to Democrat ad makers and an attempt to to play politics with the CFPB’s leadership in an attempt to undermine Trump?
Rein in the CFPB, because 'independent' shouldn't mean 'unaccountable'
Whistleblower Says CFPB Falsified Documents to Fine Payday Lender
EXCLUSIVE: Obama’s Top Campaign Ad Firm Got Nearly $60M In Federal Contracts
Confusion and chaos engulf consumer agency
Seems to me that both Trump and Wapo (the fact checkers....) are using OPINIONS. Wapo, claiming to be fact checkers for this should not be offering opinions as "facts". If the very first one of their "fact checked" list is based on pure opinion with no facts...why should anyone even bother reading the rest? (I did read several more...I can find problems with each of those also)
I could go on with the list at Wapo but I'd be in violation of DP Rule 9a.
Note: I'm not saying any of the claims against Cordray are true. I'm not digging that much into them because the issue here is about a "fact checker" using OPINIONS as "facts" or as something to note as being a "lie" or "misleading".