Specific lies Biden told

1. What independent fact‑checkers have documented

Independent fact‑checking organizations maintain searchable databases of false or misleading statements by public officials; PolitiFact’s list of Biden rulings includes multiple entries labeled “false,” documenting claims such as misstatements about the Equal Rights Amendment and other policy and historical assertions ^[1]. The Associated Press summarized debate fact‑checks showing Biden often “leans on exaggerations and embellishments rather than outright lies,” noting specific overstated claims about insulin costs and past comments about disinfectant during COVID ^[4].

2. Congressional and partisan inventories: a different framing

Republican investigators and conservative opinion outlets compile lists framed as proof of systemic deceit. House Oversight has published pieces asserting Joe Biden “lied at least 16 times” about his family’s business dealings and alleging broader influence‑peddling; those releases enumerate statements the committee deems false and present financial and investigatory materials to support their narrative ^{[2] [3]}. The Hill’s opinion pages likewise published lists described as “biggest lies,” focused on political and policy claims they say had major consequences ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Examples cited across sources — overlap and disagreement

Common examples appearing in these collections include claims about the Bidens’ involvement in Hunter Biden’s business, the extent of direct conversations Joe Biden had with family about those dealings, and statements about domestic policy outcomes ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Fact‑checkers highlight more granular factual errors — for instance, a Biden statement that “The Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution” was flagged as false in PolitiFact’s index ^[1]. The AP noted inflation‑ and health‑cost related overstatements during debates ^[4]. Partisan compilations emphasize alleged patterns and motive; independent fact‑checks focus on discrete, verifiable inaccuracies ^{[2] [1]}.

4. How to weigh these sources: credibility and agendas

The methods and motives differ. PolitiFact and AP apply stated fact‑checking methodologies to individual assertions and publish rulings; their outputs read as itemized adjudications ^{[1] [4]}. House Oversight’s publications and conservative opinion pieces pursue investigative and political aims, framing selected claims inside a larger narrative of corruption or incompetence and relying on committee findings and editorials ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Readers should treat institutional fact‑checks and partisan compilations as complementary but distinct: one evaluates specific claims, the other advances a thesis built from curated evidence ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. What reporters and readers should watch next

Developments tied to investigations or new fact‑checks can change assessments: House Oversight has continued to release materials about the Bidens’ finances and public statements ^{[2] [3]}. Independent outlets will update their databases as new statements are made or documents released ^[1]. Opinion columns and partisan sites will continue to select and emphasize different examples depending on political priorities ^{[5] [6]}.

6. Limitations and what’s not in the record

Available sources do not provide a single, comprehensive, nonpartisan “top lies” list endorsed across outlets; they offer multiple, sometimes contradictory inventories and rankings ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Available sources do not mention a definitive legal finding that Joe Biden committed perjury or criminal falsehoods in a court‑adjudicated proceeding; not found in current reporting.

Sources cited: PolitiFact false claims index ^[1]; House Oversight reports and blog posts alleging repeated falsehoods about family business dealings ^{[2] [3]}; Associated Press fact‑focus on debate false claims ^[4]; opinion compilations in The Hill and related commentary ^{[5] [6]}.