“Committed to blocking the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth or elsewhere in the United States, and sponsored legislation (the Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act) to prohibit such transfers.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
All three cited sources are reachable and every quoted passage appears verbatim. The promise has two components, both supported: (1) The sponsorship half is directly confirmed by Moran's own 2015 press release, which states the Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act (S.165) was "legislation sponsored by Sen. Moran" — Moran was a cosponsor in the 114th Congress, which his office frames as sponsorship. (2) The blocking half is supported by the 2016 Moran column (sustained personal commitment to blocking transfers to Fort Leavenworth/the U.S.) and the Scott release (the NDAA continuing the funding prohibition on transferring detainees to the United States). The underlying outcome is factually accurate: no Guantanamo detainee has ever been transferred to Fort Leavenworth or elsewhere on U.S. soil, a block sustained through successive NDAA provisions. The FULL rating does not overstate the evidence — the rationale honestly notes Moran was one of numerous cosponsors and that the operative block was a collective, bipartisan NDAA provision, which is why it was rated FULL rather than CHAMPIONED. The Scott source does not mention Moran and attributes the bill's introduction to Ayotte/Scott, but it is cited only for the general NDAA-prohibition fact, which it does support; the Moran-office source carries the sponsorship claim. No fabricated quotes, no unreachable sources, no overstatement.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.