How about two, that are strikingly similar to what happened here.
Trump was attributed with claiming that we should profile on race, when his actual quote, "Israel has done an unbelievable job, and they’ll profile. They’ll profile. They see somebody suspicious. They will profile," was about Israel profiling based on suspicion. This involves the similar dynamic of attributing a third party's views (and in this case they are imputed views, rather than a quote that was forwarded by the person in question) to the person in question. In fact this was a worse attribution error as he described the basis on which he thought profiling makes sense (and it is the same basis on which we have a friggin national campaign, "See something, say something," which is about seeing something suspicious and acting), and was deliberately reconstrued into the most offensive reconstruction possible.
Or how about the whole "conclusion" from the release of three pages from his tax returns (hello! if you think its immoral to release hacked emails, its probable that this release was an illegal one (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims that his wife did so)), that he's paid no taxes for 20 years. There's absolutely no evidence of that being true, in fact its clearly false, yet that false "story" gets stated and played over and over.
That's just two off the top of my head. The fact that people label themselves as fact checkers doesn't add much weight to the opinions they then put forward.
If you want to get into things like simple bias, how many times, while defending Obamacare has Hillary cited to things like kids staying on their parents plans or the bar on preventing people with pre-existing conditions from joining plans. Have you ever heard one single person ask her the logical follow up question? Ms. Clinton, couldn't those popular provisions be separated from the law and kept?
I've also noted, more than once, how as breaking items on the Mrs. Clinton came out we saw the major media outlets do soft sell headlines, and now its come out that there was deliberate coordination involved. Why would you trust a media that would do that for a candidate to give you objective news about the other candidate?
