Not like snopes (a random internet website) is some expert authority on such matters.
Do you?
They too try to "debunk incorrect narratives" (as they see it).
Why trust some random non-expert volunteers running a site and their citations (which could be biased).
"If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
"Except the site specifically tries to debunk incorrect narratives"
to
"employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers"
I think we achieved something important here, in spite of it all.
"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.
In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes.
But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics.
When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation.
Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
I don't see Snopes doing that, though. I see them making an argument based on evidence and (in the specific case related the linked article) not even making an absolute claim about it at the end.
The people applying "Vulcan-style logic" are those who dismiss sites like Snopes out of hand as being politically biased, or propagandist, and therefore entirely useless.