This is an example of why I personally don't trust fact checkers any more. This gets a "mixture" rating, in spite of being: a) quite literally factual - she sa

This is an example of why I personally don't trust fact checkers any more. This gets a "mixture" rating, in spite of being: a) quite literally factual - she said those exact words b) semantically similar in and out of context - Even if you read the whole speech she gave, she still seems to be implying that you need to have the act passed so that you can see what it looks like when implemented. She gives a rough draft of important desired outcomes (many of which ended up being false), but the point of that one one sentence remains the same: to establish that the bill needs to be passed in order for it's real implications to be understood. To be honest, I half agree with Pelosi here, but snopes is definitely trying to provide her with some unwarranted cover here.