claimpit
← All receipts
Fact-Checker/Videos
Video fact-check

"I'm NOT An Exorcist!" Victor Marx DENIES Lying + Socialist Democrats De-Fund PRISONS

137 claims checked · August 2026

Watch on YouTube Jump to claims ↓
The receipts

Every claim, checked

  1. Claim 1
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 0:00
    “You recounted a story where your dog apparently sensed a demonic presence, prompting you to step in and cast out five demons from a woman.”

    The speaker’s dog sensed a demonic presence and prompted him to cast five demons out of a woman.

    This is a personal anecdote involving alleged supernatural events. No reliable independent evidence can confirm whether the dog sensed a demon or whether five demons were cast out.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  2. Claim 2
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 0:11
    “That was the only time that my dog keyed up on an individual, the male, that I thought was possibly a trafficker.”

    The speaker’s dog reacted to a male whom he thought might be a trafficker.

    This is an account of a private incident and the speaker’s suspicion about the man’s identity. The claim provides no independently testable evidence that the person was a trafficker or that the dog’s reaction indicated trafficking.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  3. Claim 3
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 0:46
    “The Democratic Socialists of America are polling better than both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.”

    The Democratic Socialists of America were polling better than both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

    The statement does not identify a poll, date, population, question, or meaning of “better.” Available polling varies by wording and subgroup, so the claim as stated cannot be judged against a defined benchmark.

    Sources

  4. Claim 4
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:29
    “Victor Marks won the Republican primary in his bid to be the governor of Colorado.”

    Victor Marx won the Republican primary for governor of Colorado.

    Victor Marx won the 2026 Republican primary for Colorado governor. The transcript says “Marks,” but the candidate’s surname is spelled Marx in authoritative election coverage.

    Sources

  5. Claim 5
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 1:34
    “Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is a fan.”

    Lauren Boebert supports Victor Marx’s gubernatorial campaign.

    Boebert publicly endorsed Marx’s campaign, which supports the looser characterization that she was a fan or supporter.

    Sources

  6. Claim 6
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:37
    “He's a Marines veteran and an exorcist”

    Victor Marx is a Marine Corps veteran.

    Reliable coverage identifies Marx as a Marine Corps veteran. The quote’s grammar says “Marines veteran,” but its substantive claim is accurate.

    Sources

  7. Claim 7
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:37
    “He's a Marines veteran and an exorcist”

    Victor Marx is an exorcist.

    The claim presents “exorcist” as a factual occupational or religious title. Marx immediately corrected the description and said he prays for people rather than identifying as an exorcist.

    The checker returned False but could not show evidence for that verdict, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Misleading. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  8. Claim 8
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 1:37
    “who claims to have killed a man at the age of seven.”

    Victor Marx claims that he killed a man at age seven.

    The claim is about what Marx claims, not whether the killing actually occurred. Independent reporting documents that he previously made this claim about his childhood.

    Sources

  9. Claim 9
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 3:59
    “But I have a trained canine who was tracking on a fella and a young lady across the way.”

    The speaker's trained dog was tracking a man and a young woman near the pool.

    This is a first-person account of a private incident, and no independent evidence identifying the people, location, date, or the dog's behavior was provided. It cannot be confirmed or refuted from reliable public sources.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  10. Claim 10
    Unverifiable98% confidence▶ 4:32
    “and we do believe there were five assignments, five demonic assignments against her”

    The speaker and others believed the woman had five demonic assignments against her.

    The existence and number of alleged demonic assignments are not operationally testable or independently documented in the available evidence. The wording also reports a belief rather than an independently established event.

    Sources

    • 1Can Dogs See Ghosts?

      BackgroundDespite the fact that there is no scientific proof that dogs can see ghosts, so much of animal behavior is uncertain that the possibilities of a dog sensing something a human can’t is not out of the question.

  11. Claim 11
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 4:47
    “She felt relief and that was great”

    The woman felt relief after the speaker prayed for her.

    The claim concerns an alleged private individual's subjective reaction, but the woman is not identified and no independent testimony or contemporaneous record is available. The statement therefore cannot be verified publicly.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  12. Claim 12
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 5:03
    “Her name is Reagan. She was with us in Syria and Iraq, yeah.”

    The dog named Reagan accompanied the speaker in Syria and Iraq.

    The speaker is not identified in the transcript, and no reliable public source was found linking a dog named Reagan to the speaker's presence in both Syria and Iraq. The assertion may be true but is not independently confirmable from the available evidence.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  13. Claim 13
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 5:17
    “I served under President Reagan when I was in the Marine Corps.”

    The speaker served under President Ronald Reagan while in the Marine Corps.

    Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989, so the statement is historically possible, but the transcript does not identify the speaker or provide service records. Without knowing the speaker, the personal-service claim cannot be independently verified.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  14. Claim 14
    Unverifiable94% confidence▶ 5:46
    “Well, my dog, because she's trained, she's a Tier 1 dog,”

    The speaker's dog was trained as a Tier 1 dog.

    No standard, publicly verifiable qualification or independent record establishing this dog's alleged Tier 1 status was provided. The term may refer to an internal or organization-specific classification, making the claim impossible to assess from the transcript alone.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  15. Claim 15
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 5:57
    “And because we're involved in counter-trafficking, that's what I went over there for initially.”

    The speaker was initially at the pool because they were involved in counter-trafficking.

    The speaker and organization are not identified, and no independent source was found documenting that the speaker was conducting counter-trafficking activity at the location. The personal claim therefore cannot be confirmed or refuted.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  16. Claim 16
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 6:22
    “I wonder if my dog picked up that this woman was oppressed by evil.”

    The speaker's dog detected that a woman was oppressed by evil.

    The claim concerns an alleged detection of supernatural oppression by a particular dog in a private encounter. No objective evidence or agreed test is provided that could verify or refute it.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  17. Claim 17
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 7:05
    “someone who has a demon inside of them which would be called possession I don't deal with that I deal with demonic influences that oppress people”

    The speaker distinguishes demonic possession from demonic oppression and says he deals only with oppression.

    The existence of demons and the distinction between possession and oppression are theological concepts without an agreed empirical definition or verification standard. The statement can be reported as the speaker's belief, but not independently fact-checked as an objective occurrence.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  18. Claim 18
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 7:27
    “because the bible says take every thought captive”

    The Bible says to take every thought captive.

    The statement closely paraphrases 2 Corinthians 10:5, which instructs believers to take thoughts captive to obey Christ.

    Sources

  19. Claim 19
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 7:33
    “in the book of ephesians it talks about that how we have to put on the shield of faith we have to be ready to battle against evil”

    The Bible discusses the shield of faith and the need to battle against evil.

    Ephesians 6 describes the shield of faith and a struggle against spiritual forces of evil. The speaker is accurately describing the passage's imagery, though its theological meaning is interpretive.

    Sources

  20. Claim 20
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 7:40
    “but the battleground is definitely in the mind”

    The speaker believes that a person's thoughts are the main battleground in spiritual conflict.

    This is a theological interpretation rather than a factual claim with an agreed method of verification. It cannot be confirmed or refuted as stated.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  21. Claim 21
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 8:06
    “your official campaign website initially said that your non-profit, All Things Possible Ministries, had rescued more than 45,000 women and children from human trafficking and global terrorism.”

    All Things Possible Ministries' campaign website initially claimed that it had rescued more than 45,000 women and children from human trafficking and global terrorism.

    Available reporting documents that Marx's campaign materials promoted a 45,000-person rescue figure, and later reporting describes the claim as having been removed. The exact wording in the transcript combines trafficking with global terrorism, but the underlying 45,000 claim is documented.

    Sources

  22. Claim 22
    Misleading91% confidence▶ 8:31
    “when journalists pointed out these numbers were entirely unsubstantiated, your team quietly scrubbed that figure from the website.”

    The 45,000 rescue figure was removed from the campaign website after journalists questioned its substantiation.

    Reporting supports that the 45,000 figure was taken down after questions were raised, but the transcript overstates the evidentiary conclusion by calling the numbers entirely unsubstantiated and characterizing the removal as quiet.

    Omits: The available reporting supports removal of the figure after scrutiny, but does not establish from the cited evidence that journalists definitively proved the entire claim "entirely unsubstantiated" or that the removal was "quiet" in the precise sense asserted.

    Sources

  23. Claim 23
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 8:40
    “you've since refused to clarify the exact number for security reasons, saying it was more than one and less than a bunch.”

    Victor Marx declined to provide an exact rescue total, citing security reasons, and said it was more than one but less than a bunch.

    Contemporary reporting describes Marx refusing to give a specific total on security grounds and using the formulation “more than one but less than a bunch.”

    Sources

    • 1Non-Marx Sanctioned Media

      SupportsMarx told Clark they have rescued “more than one but less than a bunch.”

    • 2Non-Marx Sanctioned Media

      SupportsMarx refused to answer for security reasons, claiming that revealing the number would jeopardize those doing the rescuing and those who were rescued.

  24. Claim 24
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 9:08
    “I have never said that we rescued 45,000 women or children.”

    Victor Marx says he has never claimed that 45,000 women or children were rescued.

    This is a claim about the complete history of Marx's own statements across verbal remarks, videos, documentation, and websites. The available sources do not establish a comprehensive record sufficient to confirm or refute the absolute wording “never.”

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second False. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  25. Claim 25
    Unverifiable74% confidence▶ 9:08
    “I have over 3 million followers on all my social media platforms.”

    Marx says he has more than three million followers across all his social-media platforms.

    Follower totals are time-sensitive and platform-specific. Marx's 2025 media kit lists individual platform figures and a separate social-media reach figure, but the available text is internally ambiguous and does not establish that his combined follower count exceeded three million at the time of the statement.

    Sources

  26. Claim 26
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 9:23
    “himself not by a direction he put in the word rescued 45 because he just doesn't know us in that”

    Marx says a contractor independently inserted the number 45,000 into a campaign website and that the wording was quickly changed.

    The claim concerns the contractor's intent, the origin of the figure, and the timing of a website change. No independently accessible version history or reliable contemporaneous reporting was found to verify those details.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  27. Claim 27
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 10:44
    “Way back around 2017, we stopped counting at about 300.”

    Marx says he stopped counting rescues at approximately 300 around 2017 because of security risks, including threats from ISIS.

    This is a self-reported operational count and explanation for discontinuing it. The searched sources did not provide an independently verified count of approximately 300 or documentation of the claimed ISIS threats against his organization.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Accurate. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  28. Claim 28
    Unverifiable77% confidence▶ 11:32
    “rescuing a girl who had been held captive for nine years in Syria, and she had two boys that were products of being raped.”

    Marx says he and his wife were personally involved in rescuing a girl held captive for nine years in Syria, along with her two sons, who were born as a result of rape by ISIS.

    A podcast transcript attributed to Marx describes a broadly similar rescue of a mother held captive for nine years with two children in ISIS captivity and says images and videos existed, but it does not independently verify the specific woman's identity, the rape claim, or that Marx's team rescued all three.

    Sources

  29. Claim 29
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 13:12
    “we were able to give actionable intelligence to the coalition forces in northern iraq of where the enemy was”

    The speaker says his teams provided actionable intelligence to coalition forces about the location of ISIS fighters.

    This is a specific personal account, but the transcript provides no independently verifiable operational records identifying the speaker, the intelligence, or the resulting missions. Available reporting does not independently confirm this particular allegation.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  30. Claim 30
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 13:52
    “there were times they acted upon it”

    The speaker says coalition forces sometimes acted on information his teams provided.

    The claim concerns alleged confidential intelligence-sharing and resulting military action. No public source located independently verifies that coalition forces acted on information supplied by this speaker or his teams.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  31. Claim 31
    False50% confidence▶ 14:05
    “i've never claimed that i called in a u.s airstrike i passed on intelligible actionable intel of where ISIS fighters were,”

    The speaker says he never claimed to call in a U.S. airstrike that killed 70 ISIS fighters.

    Contemporary reporting describes Marx as having claimed that he called in or ordered a U.S. military airstrike that killed 70 ISIS fighters. His denial therefore conflicts with documented public accounts of his earlier claim.

    Sources

  32. Claim 32
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 14:28
    “civilians can call in or pass on information, and oftentimes, air strikes or air support, they, it happens.”

    The speaker says civilians can pass information that may lead to air strikes or air support.

    Civilians can provide information to military forces, but describing civilians as able to “call in” airstrikes risks implying that they can directly authorize or task them. The transcript itself later distinguishes passing information from acting as a forward observer who calls in a strike.

    Omits: The statement omits that civilians may provide information, but military personnel—not civilians—make the decision to authorize and conduct an airstrike after verification and operational assessment.

    Judged the combined claim as stated, including “call in” and the implied connection between civilian information and subsequent strikes.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second Misleading. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  33. Claim 33
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 14:52
    “when you were three years old, you were forced by your abusive stepfather to behead a cat and then wear the dead cat's body on your head.”

    Victor Marx says that, at age three, his abusive stepfather forced him to behead a cat and wear its body on his head.

    Reliable reporting confirms that Marx has repeatedly made this allegation, but the available evidence does not independently establish whether the event occurred. The claim is therefore unverifiable rather than proven true or false.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Accurate. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  34. Claim 34
    Unverifiable91% confidence▶ 15:06
    “There seems to be no external evidence to support this.”

    There is no external evidence supporting the account.

    The claim does not identify what evidence was searched for, what would count as external evidence, or the complete universe of available records. Public sources establish that the allegation has been discussed, but they cannot substantiate a universal absence of supporting evidence.

    Sources

  35. Claim 35
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 15:46
    “It was in the number 83 episode.”

    Victor Marx shared the account on episode 83 of the Shawn Ryan Show.

    The Shawn Ryan Show published multiple episode-83 videos featuring Victor Marx, including an installment about his childhood abuse. The episode numbering and guest attribution match the statement.

    Sources

  36. Claim 36
    Unverifiable84% confidence▶ 15:49
    “Millions listened to it, and the purpose is”

    Millions of people listened to the relevant Shawn Ryan Show episode.

    Public YouTube listings for two episode-83 installments show hundreds of thousands of views, not a verified total of millions of listeners across all platforms. Because private podcast-download data and the intended scope of “millions” are unavailable, the claim cannot be confirmed or refuted from public evidence.

    Sources

  37. Claim 37
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 16:39
    “and I was tied to a bed for the better part of all day by one arm,”

    Victor Marx was tied to a bed by one arm for most of the day as a child.

    The statement describes an alleged personal experience for which no independent corroborating evidence is identified in the available sources. The fact that Marx recounted it publicly verifies the attribution, not the underlying event.

    Sources

  38. Claim 38
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 16:57
    “I mean, I'm in my 60 years old.”

    Victor Marx was in his 60s when making the statement.

    Available biographical sources place Victor Marx's birth on July 5, 1965. Thus he was 60 in 2026, consistent with the statement as transcribed.

    Sources

  39. Claim 39
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 17:42
    “It was like a large butcher kitchen knife and the cat was dead and the abuser held my hand,”

    The cat was already dead, and the abuser guided Victor Marx's hand while he cut through its neck with a large kitchen knife.

    This is a specific personal allegation about an alleged childhood event. The available episode listings and transcripts document that Marx made the account, but do not independently establish that the event occurred as described.

    Sources

  40. Claim 40
    Unverifiable88% confidence▶ 19:05
    “NOW, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SHERIFFS IN THE MISSISSIPPI AREA WHERE THIS EVENT APPARENTLY TOOK PLACE HAVE SAID THERE ARE NO RECORDS, POLICE REPORTS OR UNSOLVED HOMICIDES MATCHING YOUR ACCOUNT FROM THAT TIME PERIOD.”

    Local law enforcement and sheriffs in the Mississippi area reportedly said there were no records, police reports, or unsolved homicides matching the account.

    The transcript identifies no specific Mississippi jurisdiction, sheriff's department, date, case number, or public statement that could independently establish whether this characterization of law-enforcement records is accurate.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  41. Claim 41
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 19:28
    “Well, I didn't murder anyone because I was a seven-year-old who was forced to shoot a person.”

    The speaker says he was seven years old when he was forced to shoot a person.

    The speaker's age and alleged coercion are personal-history claims, but the transcript supplies no independently verifiable identifying details about the incident or corroborating records.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  42. Claim 42
    Unverifiable96% confidence▶ 19:36
    “My stepfather, again, holding my hand around a pistol to a man who was handcuffed and on his knees, put his finger over the trigger and pushed it until the man was shot.”

    The speaker says his stepfather controlled his hand and fired a pistol at a handcuffed man on his knees.

    This is an alleged unreported shooting with no identified victim, location, date, weapon record, police report, or other independently verifiable evidence in the available material.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  43. Claim 43
    Unverifiable93% confidence▶ 19:58
    “It's 40 years later, and out of just a horrible conscience, I contacted the local sheriff's department,”

    The speaker says he contacted the local sheriff's department about the incident approximately 40 years later.

    The alleged contact with the sheriff's department is not independently documented in the transcript, and no department or date is specified.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  44. Claim 44
    Unverifiable97% confidence▶ 20:24
    “There was a hole dug in the floor. It was a wooden house. There was a hole cut out and a hole underneath the floor. And he was pushed into it and buried.”

    The speaker says the victim was buried beneath the floor of a wooden house after a hole was cut in the floor.

    The alleged burial site cannot be independently checked from the information provided because the speaker does not know the house's location or the victim's identity.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  45. Claim 45
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 20:40
    “We have no location of where the house was.”

    The speaker says he does not know where the incident happened or who the victim was.

    This is an accurately represented statement of the speaker's own claimed lack of knowledge, rather than an independently testable claim about the historical event.

    The checker returned Accurate but cited no source that supports the claim, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  46. Claim 46
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 21:35
    “Well, I studied, and the answer is it's possible.”

    False memories involving traumatic events are possible.

    Research reviews and the American Psychological Association recognize that false memories can occur, including memories related to childhood trauma or abuse. The evidence does not establish that a particular abuse allegation is false, only that false memories are possible.

    Sources

  47. Claim 47
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 21:39
    “I mean, I studied false memories and had 123 visits to a trauma specialist.”

    The speaker had 123 visits to a trauma specialist.

    This is a personal claim about the speaker's treatment history. No reliable independent source in the available evidence confirms or refutes the exact number of visits.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Accurate. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  48. Claim 48
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 23:16
    “seven weeks before the June primary, your campaign issued a press release claiming a public poll showed you dominating the GOP race with a 44 point lead, 59 percent to 15 percent.”

    Seven weeks before the June primary, the campaign issued a press release claiming a public poll showed the candidate leading the GOP race 59% to 15%, a 44-point lead.

    A contemporaneous account reports that on May 11, seven weeks before the June 30 Colorado Republican primary, the Marx campaign announced a poll showing Victor Marx at 59% and Barbara Kirkmeyer at 15%, a 44-point difference.

    Sources

  49. Claim 49
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 23:40
    “Now, in reality, that poll was funded by your own political action committee, and in the end, you won the primary by just 0.5%, 2,500 votes.”

    The poll was funded by the candidate's own political action committee, and the candidate won the primary by about 0.5%, or 2,500 votes.

    The reported poll was paid for by Freedom IEC, the independent-expenditure committee supporting Marx. The same report says Marx won with 39.9% versus 39.4% for Kirkmeyer, a margin of roughly 2,500 votes and about half a percentage point.

    Sources

  50. Claim 50
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 24:12
    “when in the end you didn't win by 44 points.”

    Victor Marx had a 44-point lead in a poll before the primary election.

    Contemporary reporting states that Marx claimed a 44-point lead in a poll weeks before the election. The available evidence supports that the 44-point figure was reported as a poll result or campaign claim, though it does not establish that the poll itself was accurate.

    Sources

  51. Claim 51
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 24:14
    “You won by 0.5% just a few weeks later.”

    Victor Marx won the Colorado Republican gubernatorial primary by about 0.5 percentage points.

    The final Colorado primary tally gave Marx a lead of approximately 0.5 percentage points over Barbara Kirkmeyer. The election occurred on June 30, 2026, and the result was finalized roughly nine days later, so the margin and timing are accurate in substance.

    Sources

  52. Claim 52
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 24:32
    “they're a bona fide agency out of D.C.”

    Signal Group is a public-affairs agency based in Washington, D.C.

    Signal Group identifies itself as a modern public-affairs firm and lists a Washington, D.C. address. The source supports the agency and location portions of the statement; “bona fide” is a loosely defined characterization rather than a separately measurable fact.

    Sources

  53. Claim 53
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 26:22
    “time in the Marine Corps to teach me resiliency,”

    Victor Marx served in the U.S. Marine Corps.

    Independent reporting identifies Marx as a Marine Corps veteran, confirming that he served in the U.S. Marine Corps.

    Sources

  54. Claim 54
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 26:26
    “an incredible wife of 38 years, five children who are supportive, now five grandkids,”

    Victor Marx and his wife have five children and five grandchildren.

    A biography page repeats the claim that Marx and his wife have five children and five grandchildren, but the available corroboration is not sufficiently authoritative or independent to verify the precise family counts. The transcript also gives a 38-year marriage duration that the sources reviewed do not establish exactly.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Accurate. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  55. Claim 55
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 27:20
    “We're ranked number two for crime, property crime in the US.”

    Colorado was ranked second in the United States for property crime.

    Colorado has been reported as the second-most dangerous state in a ranking based on both violent and property crime. Other data sources rank Colorado eighth for property-crime rate, so the statement creates the false impression that Colorado ranked second specifically for property crime.

    Omits: The cited 2025 ranking placed Colorado second among the most dangerous states using both violent-crime and property-crime rates; it did not rank Colorado second for property crime alone.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned False and the second Misleading. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  56. Claim 56
    Unverifiable82% confidence▶ 28:02
    “I told people from the beginning, I'm not the best candidate, but I beat 23 folks out.”

    Victor Marx defeated 23 other people to become a candidate.

    Public election coverage confirms Marx was one of several candidates and later won the Republican nomination, but the available sources do not establish that exactly 23 people competed against him or define which selection process he means.

    Sources

  57. Claim 57
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 28:18
    “She also suggested that you may have been part of some plot or cover-up involving Charlie Kirk's murder.”

    Candace Owens suggested that Victor Marx may have been involved in a plot or cover-up concerning Charlie Kirk’s murder.

    Contemporary reporting describes Owens promoting allegations of a cover-up and implicating people connected to the investigation and Turning Point USA. The transcript specifically attributes the suggestion to Owens; it does not assert that the plot or cover-up actually existed.

    Sources

  58. Claim 58
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 28:55
    “Do you believe it's the person currently in court charged with his murder,”

    Charlie Kirk was murdered and Tyler Robinson was the person charged in court with his murder.

    Court reporting identifies Tyler Robinson as the Utah man charged with aggravated murder in the September 10, 2025 shooting that killed Charlie Kirk. The wording says he was charged, not that guilt had been adjudicated.

    Sources

  59. Claim 59
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 29:19
    “And people celebrating his death from around the world, especially here in the U.S., versus those who love him,”

    People around the world, especially in the United States, celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death.

    The claim is a broad assertion about people worldwide and in the United States, but it does not specify how many people, which people, or what qualifies as celebrating. Evidence of some celebratory or approving reactions would not establish the claim at the stated global scale.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  60. Claim 60
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 30:08
    “There's a website called VictorMarksFacts.com, and we have documentation on there.”

    Victor Marx has a website called VictorMarksFacts.com containing documentation about allegations against him.

    The transcript identifies a specific website and says it contains documentation, but the available search results did not provide a reliable, accessible source confirming the site's contents or the nature of the documentation.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Accurate. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  61. Claim 61
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 31:45
    “barb kirkmeyer who was runner-up to be republican nominee with uh only lost by 0.5 percent”

    Barb Kirkmeyer was the runner-up for the Republican nomination for Colorado governor and lost by 0.5 percent.

    The Colorado Sun reported that Victor Marx won the three-way Republican primary with 39.9% of the vote to Barbara Kirkmeyer's 39.4%, a 0.5-percentage-point difference. Kirkmeyer was therefore the runner-up.

    Sources

  62. Claim 62
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 32:45
    “you would become, I believe, the first governor in the history of the United States to have murdered someone when you were seven years old”

    If elected, Victor Marx would be the first governor in United States history to have murdered someone at age seven.

    The historical superlative cannot be confirmed from the available evidence, and the underlying allegation that Marx actually killed someone has not been independently verified. Available reporting characterizes the story as difficult or impossible to verify rather than an established homicide.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second False. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  63. Claim 63
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 32:51
    “albeit you say it was with the coercion of your abusive stepfather”

    Victor Marx has said that his abusive stepfather forced him to shoot and kill a man when Marx was seven years old.

    The claim is accurately framed as an account Marx has made, not as an independently established fact. Multiple reports describe Marx's stated claim that his abusive stepfather forced him to fatally shoot a man at age seven.

    Sources

  64. Claim 64
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 33:12
    “this is an unsolved murder of a homeless man”

    The killing described by Marx was an unsolved murder of a homeless man.

    Reporting confirms only that Marx has told a story about killing an unidentified man; it does not establish that the victim was homeless or that a corresponding unsolved murder case exists. A review of the allegation states that no murder or missing-person record has been tied to Marx or his stepfather.

    Sources

  65. Claim 65
    Unverifiable88% confidence▶ 34:59
    “You have confessed that you took part in the murder of what you say was a homeless man whose body was then put under floorboards in a property in Mississippi.”

    A person’s body was placed under the floorboards of a property in Mississippi, according to Victor Marx’s account.

    Available sources document Marx describing the shooting of a man and his stepfather burying him in a hole, but they do not independently establish that a body was placed under floorboards in Mississippi. The underlying murder and burial account remains uncorroborated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

  66. Claim 66
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 35:01
    “You want to be the governor of Colorado.”

    Victor Marx was seeking the office of governor of Colorado.

    Contemporary reporting identifies Victor Marx as a candidate for governor of Colorado in the 2026 Republican primary.

    Sources

  67. Claim 67
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 35:06
    “You have confessed that you took part in the murder”

    Victor Marx has said that he participated in killing a man when he was seven years old.

    Marx has repeatedly said that he was involved in the killing of a man when he was seven, so the underlying attribution is accurate. However, calling it a confession and presenting the murder as established fact omits that no independent evidence has verified the homicide.

    Omits: The available reporting describes this as Marx's unverified claim or account, not an established confession to a proven homicide.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second Misleading. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  68. Claim 68
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 35:17
    “You say you were forced to do it by an abusive stepfather who held the gun with you.”

    Victor Marx has said that he was forced by his stepfather to participate in killing a man while holding a gun.

    A transcript of Marx recounting the event says his stepfather placed a finger over his trigger finger, pushed, and caused him to shoot the man. The statement is accurately framed as what Marx says happened, not as an independently proven fact.

    Sources

  69. Claim 69
    Unverifiable80% confidence▶ 35:35
    “We told the story. We told what we can. They couldn't find anything.”

    Victor Marx says that law-enforcement agencies were told the story and could not find anything.

    The transcript records Marx making this assertion, but the sources reviewed do not provide independent documentation of the alleged investigations, their scope, or their findings. The claim therefore cannot be confirmed or refuted from the available evidence.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  70. Claim 70
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 35:54
    “the man who made me do that went to prison”

    Victor Marx’s stepfather went to federal prison and was later released.

    Reporting about Gloyce Kennedy states that he went to federal prison for an international drug-smuggling operation and was released after serving his sentence. This supports the claim that Marx’s stepfather went to prison, though it does not verify that he was imprisoned for the alleged killing.

    Sources

    • 1Victor Marx Murder

      BackgroundVictor now says he believes that Gloyce Kennedy-Mr. K brought this man to the cabin, pre-built with a hole, to let the homeless-looking man abuse Victor.

    • 2VICTOR MARX & THE KENNEDY FAMILY BUSINESS

      SupportsGloyce pled nolo contendere -- no contest. He went to federal prison. BOP Register #01523-043. Released June 28, 1993.

  71. Claim 71
    Misleading88% confidence▶ 36:54
    “because the Bible says what Satan meant for evil, God can return and redeem for good.”

    The Bible says that what Satan meant for evil can be redeemed by God for good.

    The statement is a theological paraphrase of a biblical theme, but the specific attribution to Satan is not what Genesis 50:20 says. The verse refers to human actors who intended harm and to God’s providential purpose.

    Omits: The biblical passage commonly associated with this wording is Genesis 50:20, where Joseph says his brothers intended evil but God intended it for good; it does not say that Satan meant it for evil.

    Sources

  72. Claim 72
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 37:13
    “The people will decide November and they've already decided June 30th, which is why I won the primary.”

    The speaker won the Republican primary for Colorado governor on June 30, 2026.

    Victor Marx won the 2026 Republican primary for Colorado governor, which was held on June 30, 2026. The result was later reported by The Washington Post and Associated Press.

    Sources

  73. Claim 73
    Unverifiable86% confidence▶ 38:06
    “an innocent man was murdered and that crime has never been solved and you're big on victims and big on accountability but no one's been made accountable for that murder no one has found the body”

    The alleged murder of a homeless man was never solved, no one was held accountable, and the man's body was never found.

    The transcript does not identify the alleged victim, location, date, or case number, so the claims cannot be matched reliably to a documented homicide. Available reporting says there was no evidence of the alleged crime, which does not establish that a specific unsolved murder and missing body existed.

    Sources

  74. Claim 74
    Unverifiable82% confidence▶ 38:58
    “I didn't wait until I was governor in order to try to seek justice. I went to authorities to try to find out and help them find out who this was”

    The speaker went to authorities to help identify the alleged victim and seek justice before becoming governor.

    This is a specific account of the speaker's own actions, but the transcript provides no agency, date, report, or case identifier. The sources located document that he made the allegation, not that he contacted authorities or assisted an investigation.

    Sources

  75. Claim 75
    Unverifiable98% confidence▶ 39:34
    “And 123 visits to a trauma specialist proved that.”

    The speaker says that 123 visits to a trauma specialist proved that they had been forced as a child to do something horrific.

    The statement refers to a private medical history and presents visits to a trauma specialist as proof of an underlying event. No publicly available evidence can establish what the visits were for or whether they proved the alleged abuse.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  76. Claim 76
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 39:40
    “I would like justice for that homeless man who was brutally murdered.”

    A homeless man was brutally murdered in the incident being discussed.

    The transcript does not identify the victim, location, date, or incident. Although many documented cases fit the description, the specific event referenced cannot be reliably identified from the available context.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  77. Claim 77
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 39:55
    “No, I understand that, but Victor, only one person was murdered that day, and it wasn't you.”

    Only one person was murdered that day, and that person was not Victor Marks.

    The relevant incident is not identified in the transcript, so the number of people murdered that day and the identity of the victim cannot be checked. The assertion depends on an undefined event and timeframe.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  78. Claim 78
    Misleading89% confidence▶ 40:51
    “AT LEAST 35 CANDIDATES BACKED BY THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA HAVE WON PRIMARIES AGAINST MODERATE CANDIDATES FOR THE MIDTERMS.”

    At least 35 candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America had won or advanced through primaries for the 2026 midterms.

    A June 2026 report said DSA-backed candidates had 35 primary victories or uncontested advances. It did not establish that all 35 won contested primaries against moderate candidates, making the transcript's framing broader and more specific than the evidence supports. ([washingtonexaminer.com](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/4624938/over-30-socialists-won-primaries-2026-elections/?utm_source=openai))

    Omits: The reported figure included candidates who advanced from primaries or were unopposed, not exclusively candidates who won contested primaries against moderate candidates.

    Sources

  79. Claim 79
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 41:28
    “AIPAC AND LIKE-MINDED GROUPS HAVE SPENT MORE THAN $50 MILLION, A RECORD, BACKING A PRO-ISRAEL CANDIDATE IN MICHIGAN.”

    AIPAC and aligned groups spent more than $50 million backing a pro-Israel candidate in Michigan, a record amount.

    Reliable reporting supports more than $50 million in total outside spending for Stevens and a record AIPAC investment in the race. It does not support attributing the entire amount directly to AIPAC and like-minded groups in the way the narration implies.

    Omits: The more-than-$50-million figure refers to outside groups supporting Haley Stevens collectively, while AIPAC and its affiliates were reported to have spent close to $30 million; the record characterization applies to AIPAC's investment in a single race, not necessarily to all spending.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second Misleading. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  80. Claim 80
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 41:44
    “MAYOR MAMDANI'S DECISION TO PUBLISH THE PERSONAL DETAILS OF PART-TIME RESIDENTS FACING HIS new second home tax has caused outrage.”

    Mayor Mamdani published personal details of part-time residents who could face his new second-home tax.

    Reports support that names and addresses of owners of potentially affected second homes were published and that the release drew criticism. The narration presents the list as definitively identifying part-time residents subject to Mamdani's tax, although the list included properties and owners whose eligibility was uncertain.

    Omits: The published list was described as a government property-owner data release of potentially affected residences, and officials said not all listed owners would qualify for the tax or receive notices; the tax was proposed by Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul rather than solely by Mamdani.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second Misleading. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  81. Claim 81
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 42:08
    “and then 18 months after a healthcare CEO was executed in the street, then publish the list?”

    A healthcare CEO was executed in the street about 18 months before the discussion.

    Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was killed on December 4, 2024, on a Manhattan street. The segment's surrounding current-events context places the discussion in 2026, but even the available 2026 reporting makes the interval about 18 months only if the discussion occurred around June 2026; the provided current date is August 5, 2026, making the timing about 20 months, while the source context appears tied to the 2026 Michigan primary. The claim as a precise temporal comparison is unsupported and conflicts with the apparent publication timing.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Unverifiable. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  82. Claim 82
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 42:20
    “streamer Hassan Piker, the nephew of Cenk Uygur and an extremely popular far-left”

    Hasan Piker is the nephew of Cenk Uygur.

    The Anti-Defamation League identifies Hasan Piker as Cenk Uygur's nephew. ([adl.org](https://www.adl.org/resources/article/hasan-piker-what-you-need-know?utm_source=openai))

    Sources

    • 1Hasan Piker: What You Need to Know

      SupportsPiker is the nephew of Cenk Uygur, CEO and founder of The Young Turks (TYT), a political network that has veered into explicit antisemitism in recent years.

  83. Claim 83
    Unverifiable83% confidence▶ 42:26
    “CNN regularly asks candidates to disavow him. Others are attacked for hosting him at their events”

    CNN regularly asks candidates to disavow Hasan Piker, and people are attacked for hosting him at events.

    The transcript provides no specific candidates, events, dates, or count establishing that CNN does this regularly or that hosts are attacked. The broad frequency and causation claims cannot be reliably evaluated from the available evidence.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  84. Claim 84
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 42:31
    “I am not going to be in the same party with Hassan Piker. I can tell you that right now. If he becomes a force in the Democratic Party, I'm out of here.”

    James Carville said he would leave the Democratic Party if Hasan Piker became a force within it.

    Contemporaneous reporting quotes Democratic strategist James Carville saying he did not want to belong to the same party as the referenced DSA-linked figure and objected to that person becoming a force in the Democratic Party. The transcript appears to use the name “Hassan Piker,” while the commonly known commentator’s name is Hasan Piker.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second False. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  85. Claim 85
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 43:37
    “This is a clip of the DSA national co-chair, Megan Romer”

    Megan Romer is the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

    A DSA publication identifies Megan Romer as a DSA co-chair, and independent reporting identifies her as the organization’s co-chair. The transcript’s description is supported.

    Sources

  86. Claim 86
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 43:47
    “Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the U.S. illegally. As a long-term plan, yep. Defund the Pentagon. Absolutely. Abolish prisons, at least in large part. Yeah, again, as part of a long-term program, yeah.”

    In the referenced Fox News segment, Romer affirmed long-term abolition of borders with amnesty for people in the United States illegally, defunding the Pentagon, and abolishing prisons at least in large part.

    Reporting on the Fox News interview reproduces the same questions and Romer’s affirmative answers. DSA’s own materials also endorse abolishing prisons and describe support for amnesty and reduced or abolished border enforcement, though the interview framed these as long-term programs.

    Sources

  87. Claim 87
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 44:09
    “the DSA wants to abolish borders, the Senate, the presidency, the Supreme Court, ICE, and prisons, and give full amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

    The DSA’s positions described in the segment include abolishing the Senate, replacing or abolishing the presidency and Supreme Court, abolishing ICE and prisons, abolishing borders, and granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants.

    The Fox segment supports Romer affirming abolition of borders, the Senate, ICE, and prisons, plus amnesty, and supports replacing the presidency and Supreme Court in their current forms. However, the host’s summary converts replacement and long-term policy goals into unconditional immediate abolition, creating a misleading impression.

    Omits: The statement omits that the cited answers described these as long-term programs and that “replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them” is not necessarily identical to abolishing those institutions outright.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Accurate. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  88. Claim 88
    Unverifiable93% confidence▶ 46:51
    “The Democratic Socialists of America are polling better than both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.”

    The Democratic Socialists of America poll better than both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

    The statement does not identify the poll, date, sample, question wording, or meaning of “polling better.” Available polling shows public views of democratic socialists and the two parties, but does not establish this precise comparison.

    Sources

  89. Claim 89
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 47:12
    “fund ICE, who's literally murdering American mothers and nurses in the street.”

    ICE is literally murdering American mothers and nurses in the street.

    Reliable reporting documents fatal shootings of an American mother and an American nurse involving federal immigration officers, but whether those deaths legally constitute murder remains disputed. The transcript states the disputed legal conclusion as fact.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Unverifiable. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  90. Claim 90
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 47:35
    “you have a government in office currently that ran on and is actively trying to dismantle the Department of Education, dismantle our response to disease.”

    The current government is actively trying to dismantle the Department of Education and its response to disease.

    The administration did issue an order to begin dismantling the Education Department, so that portion is supported. Its health restructuring included major cuts and reorganizations but also explicitly characterized the transfer of emergency-response functions to the CDC as a strengthening measure; “dismantle our response to disease” overstates and obscures that distinction.

    Omits: The statement omits that the administration described its health reorganization as transferring and consolidating public-health functions, including moving emergency-response responsibilities into the CDC, rather than simply dismantling the disease-response system.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Accurate. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  91. Claim 91
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 47:54
    “We're in the middle of what is being called a poop pandemic because nobody can even buy bagged veggies anymore in the United States of America.”

    The United States is experiencing a “poop pandemic” because nobody can buy bagged vegetables.

    “Poop pandemic” has no established operational definition, and the statement gives no identifiable source for the alleged nationwide inability to purchase bagged vegetables or for the claimed causal connection. The claim cannot be judged as stated.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned False and the second Unverifiable. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  92. Claim 92
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 48:02
    “old-time ideas like getting rid of the Senate, which is wildly unrepresentative.”

    The U.S. Senate is wildly unrepresentative.

    The evaluative word “wildly” is subjective, but the underlying factual assertion that Senate representation is not population-proportional is accurate: every state receives two senators regardless of population, while the House is apportioned by population.

    Sources

  93. Claim 93
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 48:09
    “Does it make common sense to the average American that a state like Vermont should have the exact same representation as a state like California, the world's fifth biggest economy with 30 million people?”

    Vermont has the same Senate representation as California despite their very different populations.

    Vermont and California each have two U.S. senators, so the equal-Senate-representation comparison is correct. But California’s population was about 39.5 million in 2025, not 30 million; its economy was also reported as the world’s fourth-largest in 2025, making the numerical description outdated or inaccurate.

    Omits: California has roughly 39.5 million residents, not 30 million, and the statement does not clarify that the equal representation applies to states in the Senate, while House representation is population-based.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Accurate. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  94. Claim 94
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 48:46
    “about why both Democratic and Republican administrations have a sanctions campaign against Venezuela and other countries in the global south that drive mass immigration by people.”

    Both Democratic and Republican administrations have maintained a sanctions campaign against Venezuela and other Global South countries that drives mass immigration.

    The claim is too broad to verify as stated: it does not define which countries, sanctions, or migration flows are included, nor does it establish that sanctions are the cause rather than one factor among political, economic, and humanitarian conditions. Evidence on Venezuela identifies sanctions as contributing to economic decline, but also describes a preexisting political and economic crisis and does not substantiate the sweeping causal claim about mass immigration from the Global South.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Unverifiable. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  95. Claim 95
    Accurate93% confidence▶ 50:29
    “Under Barack Obama, three million people got deported.”

    Three million people were deported under Barack Obama.

    Federal immigration statistics record roughly three million formal removals during Obama's two terms. The figure is broadly accurate when referring to removals, although removals and returns are distinct categories in immigration statistics.

    Sources

  96. Claim 96
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 50:32
    “He was the greatest deporter of immigrants in the history of the United States as a president, right?”

    Barack Obama was the greatest deporter of immigrants in U.S. presidential history.

    Obama had the highest recorded number of formal removals during a presidency under the modern DHS removal definition, about three million. But calling him the greatest deporter in U.S. history without defining the metric is misleading because earlier administrations used different removal-and-return categories and historical comparisons are not directly equivalent.

    Omits: The statement does not specify whether it means formal removals, total removals and returns, or a rate adjusted for time in office; different historical counting methods produce different comparisons.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Accurate. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  97. Claim 97
    False98% confidence▶ 51:00
    “Then Biden comes along, and he allows up to 10 million people to cross the border illegally into the United States.”

    The Biden administration allowed up to 10 million people to cross the U.S. border illegally.

    The claim treats border encounters as 10 million people who crossed illegally into the country. Official and fact-checking analyses show that encounters include repeated attempts, people apprehended or expelled, and people arriving at ports of entry, so the cited number does not support the assertion that up to 10 million people entered and were allowed to remain.

    Sources

  98. Claim 98
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 51:08
    “Then Trump replaces him, partly because of what Biden did on the border. That's why he gets re-elected.”

    Donald Trump was reelected partly because of what Biden did at the border.

    The statement makes a causal claim about why voters elected Trump, but 'partly because' does not specify a testable threshold or allow the border issue to be isolated from other election factors. Polling can show that immigration was important to voters, but it cannot by itself verify the asserted causal contribution.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Misleading. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  99. Claim 99
    Misleading94% confidence▶ 51:13
    “and he immediately closes the southern border”

    Donald Trump immediately closed the southern border after taking office.

    Trump did sign first-day executive orders directing measures to halt unauthorized entry and declaring a border emergency. But describing this as immediately closing the southern border overstates the legal effect: the actions restricted specified forms of entry rather than shutting the border to everyone.

    Omits: Trump issued executive actions on January 20, 2025, but they did not literally close the entire southern border to all people; the measures targeted unauthorized entry and sought to suspend entry of specified noncitizens, while legal crossings and other processes continued.

    The intensifier 'immediately' is judged as referring to action taken on the first day of Trump's term, which is supported; 'closes the southern border' is judged literally and is misleading.

    Sources

  100. Claim 100
    Accurate88% confidence▶ 51:38
    “sort of dim-witted to believe that the solution to global immigration crisis, which is only going to get worse because of climate change”

    Climate change is contributing to the worsening of global displacement and migration pressures.

    The claim identifies climate change as a cause of worsening migration pressures. UN sources state that climate change is increasingly displacing people and worsening displacement and conflict, although the broader term “global immigration crisis” is politically and analytically imprecise.

    Sources

  101. Claim 101
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 51:46
    “the kind of international destabilization that you've seen Trump instigate with these wars in Iran and that have broadly trickled through the entire Middle East”

    Donald Trump instigated wars in Iran that have contributed to destabilization across the Middle East.

    The claim uses undefined and disputed causal terms—particularly 'instigate,' 'these wars,' and 'broadly trickled through the entire Middle East.' Sources document U.S. military action against Iran and regional escalation, but they do not provide an agreed operational test for attributing the entire regional destabilization described here to Trump.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Unverifiable. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  102. Claim 102
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 52:42
    “as ronald reagan once said very rightly if you don't have a border you don't have a country”

    Ronald Reagan said that without a border, a country does not exist.

    The exact wording could not be verified in reliable Reagan presidential records located for this review. Reagan did make other documented statements about border control and immigration, but those do not establish that he said this particular sentence.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second False. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  103. Claim 103
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 53:42
    “the simple answer is the vast majority of the American people do not support open borders”

    A vast majority of Americans oppose open borders.

    There is no single agreed operational definition of 'open borders,' and the cited polling evidence generally measures support for immigration levels, border security or specific immigration policies rather than the undefined concept itself. Gallup does show broad support for immigration overall, but that does not directly confirm or refute the speaker's formulation.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second Unverifiable. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  104. Claim 104
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 53:55
    “The vast majority of American people do not want to defund the police”

    A vast majority of Americans oppose defunding the police.

    National polling found that 64% opposed the “defund the police” movement, while other surveys likewise found minority support for reducing police funding. The precise meaning of “defund” varies, but opposition to the slogan and associated policy is clearly predominant in the cited polling.

    Sources

  105. Claim 105
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 54:00
    “The vast majority of American people don't want to get rid of the United States Senate or the Supreme Court or the presidency”

    A vast majority of Americans oppose eliminating the Senate, Supreme Court, or presidency.

    The claim is testable in principle, but no specific survey or operational definition of “get rid of” is provided, and the review did not locate reliable polling that simultaneously measures majority support for abolishing all three institutions. It therefore cannot be verified as stated.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  106. Claim 106
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 55:19
    “do you think all 10 million that came in in Biden's four years were legitimate refugees”

    About 10 million people came into the United States during Biden's four years.

    CBP recorded roughly 2 million southwest-border encounters per year during fiscal years 2021–2024, which totals close to 10 million. However, GAO states that encounter counts can include the same person more than once, so the statement falsely presents encounters as people who came into the country.

    Omits: The figure refers roughly to cumulative CBP encounters, not 10 million unique people who entered the United States; encounters include repeat crossings, people stopped or expelled, and inadmissible applicants at ports of entry.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second False. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  107. Claim 107
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 55:55
    “Well, it is a crime. It is a crime to enter a country illegally.”

    Entering the United States illegally is a crime.

    Federal law makes improper entry, including entering the United States at an unauthorized time or place, punishable by criminal penalties; a first offense can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Some other immigration violations are civil, but that does not negate the claim about improper entry.

    Sources

    • 18 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

      SupportsAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

  108. Claim 108
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 56:09
    “When we have the Department of Homeland Security, that is invalidating temporary protected status for our Haitian neighbours.”

    DHS invalidated or terminated temporary protected status for Haitian nationals.

    DHS did take action in 2025 to reduce and then announce termination of Haiti's TPS designation. But “invalidating temporary protected status” is overbroad because the government notices applied to particular designations, beneficiaries, and effective dates rather than universally voiding every Haitian person's status.

    Omits: The action was a partial reduction or termination of Haiti's TPS designation with specified effective dates and did not automatically invalidate every Haitian person's immigration status or all TPS protections.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Misleading and the second Accurate. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  109. Claim 109
    False99% confidence▶ 56:45
    “I think that this is a civil violation. It is not a criminal violation.”

    Entering the United States unlawfully is only a civil violation and not a criminal act.

    Although many immigration-status violations are civil and removal proceedings are generally civil, federal law separately criminalizes improper entry at an unauthorized place or time. The statement denies that criminal provision applies to unlawful entry.

    Sources

    • 18 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

      RefutesAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

  110. Claim 110
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 57:45
    “And then we have the Department of Homeland Security that is just blanket invalidating people's status.”

    DHS is blanket-invalidating people’s immigration status.

    The claim does not identify which immigration status, people, or DHS policy it refers to. DHS and USCIS have authority to terminate some forms of status in specified circumstances, but the sweeping word “blanket” cannot be evaluated without a defined policy or population.

    Sources

  111. Claim 111
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 58:12
    “I would much prefer to have a secure, closed border, pretty much, that Trump has brought in, to the porous, open border that Biden allowed.”

    Trump brought in a secure, essentially closed border, unlike the porous, open border allowed by Biden.

    CBP recorded substantial encounters during both administrations, so Trump did not bring in a literally closed border and Biden did not eliminate border enforcement. Encounters were much higher during much of Biden’s presidency and later fell sharply, but the binary “closed versus open” framing is inaccurate.

    Omits: The statement omits that the U.S.-Mexico border was not literally closed under either administration and that Biden-era policy included enforcement measures and a June 2024 rule that reduced encounters; it also presents “open border” as a description rather than a contested political characterization.

    The intensifiers “secure, closed” and “porous, open” are judged as literal factual descriptions, not merely political shorthand.

    Sources

  112. Claim 112
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 59:03
    “Ronald Reagan supported amnesty.”

    Ronald Reagan supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

    Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which included legalization for certain undocumented immigrants. “Amnesty” is a common political description of that legalization program.

    Sources

  113. Claim 113
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 59:09
    “We have a overburdened immigration system that has not had the capacity.”

    The U.S. immigration system is overburdened and lacks sufficient capacity.

    The immigration adjudication system has faced a very large and documented backlog, including millions of pending cases in immigration courts. That backlog supports the claim that the system has been overburdened and capacity-constrained.

    Sources

  114. Claim 114
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 59:52
    “what this person, Oliver Larkin, is actually saying is he would let everybody into the United States.”

    Oliver Larkin said he would let everybody who wanted to come into the United States.

    In the transcript, Oliver advocates facilitating entry for people who want to live and work in the United States but explicitly qualifies that position by saying public safety can still be maintained. The later speaker’s claim that Oliver therefore said he would let everybody in overstates his stated position.

    The checker returned False but cited no source that refutes the claim, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  115. Claim 115
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:00:07
    “There would be no border. Without a border, there is no United States. There's no country.”

    Oliver’s proposed immigration system would mean there was no border and therefore no United States.

    The conclusion does not follow from Oliver’s remarks. A policy favoring broader admission or documentation is not equivalent to having no border, and Oliver expressly referred to applications at the border and public-safety safeguards.

    The checker returned False but cited no source that refutes the claim, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  116. Claim 116
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:00:29
    “I just find that... I'm incredulous that a politician in America would just open the border to anyone who wants to come in.”

    The speaker was incredulous that an American politician would open the border to anyone who wanted to enter.

    This repeats the unsupported inference that Oliver’s position was admission of anyone without limits. His actual remarks, as transcribed, described a more permissive system but retained procedural and public-safety conditions.

    The checker returned False but cited no source that refutes the claim, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  117. Claim 117
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:00:50
    “and I think Oliver is making a good point, that this is a civil violation.”

    Entering the United States illegally is a civil violation.

    The legal classification depends on the conduct. Unlawful presence is generally handled as a civil immigration matter, but entering or attempting to enter outside an authorized port is a federal crime, so describing people entering illegally categorically as a civil violation is misleading.

    Omits: The statement omits that improper entry between ports of entry is also a federal criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, while unlawful presence or visa overstays are generally civil violations.

    Sources

    • 1Immigration-Related Criminal Offenses: An Overview

      RefutesSeveral provisions in federal law criminalize activities that are related to immigration, including improper entry and illegal reentry.

    • 28 U.S.C. § 1325 — Improper Entry by Alien

      RefutesAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

  118. Claim 118
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:01:26
    “This was just something that Biden was working on when he was president, and it was Donald Trump who came in and told the GOP senators, even though it was a bipartisan bill, not to vote for it. And he did that because he knew it would be popular.”

    Biden was working on the bipartisan immigration and border bill, and Trump told Republican senators not to support it because it would give Biden a political win.

    The February 2024 Senate border package was negotiated on a bipartisan basis and supported by President Biden. Contemporary reporting and congressional statements documented Trump's opposition and described his concern that passage would benefit Biden politically; the precise private conversation with every GOP senator is less directly documented, but the claim's substantive assertion is supported.

    Sources

  119. Claim 119
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:02:47
    “But most Americans want America to have a damn border.”

    Most Americans want America to have a border.

    The claim uses the undefined phrase “have a border,” which could mean maintaining a territorial boundary, enforcing immigration law, or opposing open borders. Polls show broad concern about the southern-border situation, but they do not directly test this exact proposition without defining the policy meaning of “border.”

    Sources

  120. Claim 120
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:03:00
    “and we've got DSA candidates out there saying we want open borders.”

    The DSA has candidates who support open borders.

    The transcript does not identify the candidates, and the named example is unclear. The national DSA has adopted an open-borders position, but that does not by itself establish that particular DSA candidates said or endorsed the phrase.

    Sources

    • 1DSA Resolutions for the 2019 Convention

      BackgroundBe it resolved that DSA supports the demand for open borders;

    • 2Using power builds power

      BackgroundDSA supports the uninhibited transnational free movement of people, demilitarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, abolition of the agencies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, decriminalization of immigration, and a pathway to citizenship for all non-citizen residents.

  121. Claim 121
    Misleading92% confidence▶ 1:07:37
    “an institution that literally fails its audits and can't even account for where the money is going.”

    The Department of Defense cannot account for where its money is going.

    GAO documents serious weaknesses, unsupported information, and inadequate financial systems that prevent DOD from obtaining a clean audit. But the phrase “can't even account for where the money is going” implies a total inability to track expenditures, which is stronger than what the audit findings establish.

    Omits: The claim omits that a disclaimer of opinion means auditors could not obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to support the financial statements; it does not establish that no money can be accounted for or that DOD cannot track any spending.

    Sources

  122. Claim 122
    False50% confidence▶ 1:07:56
    “Defund means you abolish it.”

    “Defund” means abolishing an institution entirely.

    The standard dictionary meaning of “defund” concerns withdrawing or reducing financial support, not necessarily eliminating the organization itself. Abolition can be a political objective associated with some defunding campaigns, but it is not the word’s definition.

    Sources

  123. Claim 123
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:08:30
    “The Pentagon, no one here can answer the direct question of whether or not they believe the Pentagon, which has an unprecedentedly large budget that cannot pass an audit for eight, nine years in a row, should get increased funding.”

    The Department of Defense has failed to receive a clean audit opinion for eight consecutive years through fiscal year 2025.

    GAO states that DoD underwent full-scope audits from FY2018 onward and received disclaimers in FY2024 and FY2025, amounting to eight years through FY2025. The phrase 'eight, nine years' is therefore imprecise, and 'cannot pass an audit' inaccurately characterizes a disclaimer of opinion.

    Omits: The relevant period is eight full-scope audits through FY2025, while GAO described seven consecutive disclaimers through FY2024; moreover, a disclaimer is not literally a failed audit but an inability to issue an opinion.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Accurate and the second Misleading. Recorded as Misleading.

    Sources

  124. Claim 124
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:08:30
    “the Pentagon, which has an unprecedentedly large budget”

    The Pentagon has an unprecedentedly large budget.

    “Unprecedentedly large” is not operationally defined: it could mean the largest nominal budget ever, the largest inflation-adjusted budget, the largest share of GDP, or another comparison. Without a time period, metric, and scope, the claim cannot be judged precisely.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  125. Claim 125
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:09:02
    “Well, it actually means to stop providing money, or it can mean to reduce the amount of money.”

    The dictionary definition of “defund” includes stopping funding or reducing the amount of funding.

    Major English dictionaries define “defund” as withdrawing funding, and Cambridge specifically includes stopping or providing less money. The quoted statement accurately describes those dictionary meanings.

    Sources

  126. Claim 126
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:09:10
    “But as you know, in the general debate about this, it's been accepted that when people have said defund, they mean abolish.”

    The general debate has accepted that when people say “defund,” they mean “abolish.”

    The claim refers to an undefined “general debate” and does not identify a polling body, institution, jurisdiction, or measurable standard for acceptance. Dictionary definitions and documented political usage include reducing or withdrawing funding without abolition, but they do not by themselves establish what the general debate has accepted.

    Sources

  127. Claim 127
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:09:48
    “DEFUND MEANS DECREASE FUNDING FOR.”

    “Defund” means to decrease funding for something.

    The ordinary meaning of “defund” is to withdraw or reduce financial support. “Decrease funding for” accurately captures that meaning.

    Sources

  128. Claim 128
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:09:50
    “ABOLISH MEANS ABOLISH ENTIRELY.”

    “Abolish” means to end something completely.

    Major dictionaries define “abolish” as completely doing away with or putting an end to something, so the statement is accurate.

    Sources

  129. Claim 129
    Misleading89% confidence▶ 1:10:40
    “GIVEN THAT THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CANDIDATES ESPOUSE A PHILOSOPHY WHERE THEY WANT TO ABOLISH ALL THESE INSTITUTIONS”

    Democratic Socialist candidates espouse a philosophy of abolishing the Pentagon, police, and prisons.

    DSA materials support abolitionist goals concerning police and prisons, including cutting police budgets toward zero. However, the statement generalizes that position to all “these institutions,” including the Pentagon, and attributes it to Democratic Socialist candidates collectively without establishing that all such candidates hold that view.

    Omits: The DSA platform explicitly calls for abolishing or moving toward abolition of police and prisons, but the cited platform does not state that DSA candidates seek to abolish the Pentagon; it also describes abolition as a long-term horizon and lists incremental demands.

    Sources

  130. Claim 130
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:11:09
    “yeah, I think it was really bad that ICE murdered American citizens in the street,”

    ICE murdered American citizens in the street.

    Reliable reporting confirms that American citizens were fatally shot during encounters involving federal immigration agents in the street. But “murdered” is a disputed legal and factual characterization: advocacy groups and some analysts use that term, while government officials characterize at least one shooting as justified self-defense.

    The checker found this claim contested — credible institutions have reached opposing conclusions and no ruling has settled it. This site is not yet publishing that verdict, so it is recorded as unverifiable rather than judged either way.

    Checked twice, independently: the first pass returned Unverifiable and the second Misleading. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  131. Claim 131
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 1:13:30
    “that has private prisons literally profiting off of mass detention and deportation”

    Private prison companies profit from mass detention and deportation through ICE-related detention operations.

    Private companies including GEO Group and CoreCivic operate immigration detention facilities under government contracts and earn revenue from ICE detention services. The wording is broad, but its substantive assertion that private prison companies profit from detention connected to deportation is supported.

    Sources

  132. Claim 132
    Misleading94% confidence▶ 1:13:30
    “170 plus billion dollars went towards ice and the one big beautiful bill last year”

    The One Big Beautiful Bill provided more than $170 billion for ICE.

    The 2025 law provided approximately $170 billion for immigration enforcement and border security overall, including roughly $75 billion for ICE, about $65 billion for CBP, and other allocations. Saying that the entire amount went to ICE creates a materially false impression.

    Omits: The approximately $170 billion figure refers to immigration and border-enforcement funding across multiple agencies and programs, not money all going to ICE; ICE's share was approximately $75 billion.

    Sources

  133. Claim 133
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:14:17
    “We have more nuclear weapons than we can ever reasonably spend.”

    The United States has more nuclear weapons than it could reasonably spend money on.

    The statement uses the undefined standard “reasonably spend,” which could refer to affordability, strategic utility, or some other criterion. Nuclear-arsenal size and spending are measurable, but the claim's decisive comparison has no agreed operational definition.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  134. Claim 134
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:14:23
    “the Pentagon has not passed an audit in years and years and years”

    The Pentagon has not passed a clean audit for many consecutive years.

    The Department of Defense has undergone annual department-wide audits since fiscal year 2018 but has repeatedly received disclaimers or otherwise failed to obtain an unmodified, clean opinion. Official Defense Department and GAO sources document the continuing audit problem.

    Sources

  135. Claim 135
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:14:29
    “We're seeing record Pentagon budgets”

    Pentagon budgets have reached record levels.

    Recent national-defense and Defense Department funding levels have been historically high in nominal dollars, with FY2025 national-defense budget authority estimated at about $892.5 billion and later legislation adding substantial supplemental defense funding. The claim does not specify a particular fiscal year or whether it means nominal or inflation-adjusted records, but its ordinary recent-period meaning is supported.

    Sources

  136. Claim 136
    Misleading84% confidence▶ 1:14:34
    “yet a complete deficiency in our inventory of missile interceptors”

    The Pentagon has a complete deficiency in its inventory of missile interceptors despite record investment.

    GAO has found that the Missile Defense Agency failed to meet annual goals for deliveries and testing, which supports concerns about shortfalls. However, “complete deficiency” substantially overstates the evidence because the United States does possess operational missile interceptors and the cited oversight finding concerns unmet goals rather than a wholly deficient inventory.

    Omits: Available evidence documents missed missile-defense delivery and testing goals, not a complete deficiency or total absence of missile interceptors.

    Sources

  137. Claim 137
    Unverifiable89% confidence▶ 1:21:10
    “i am not a democrat i don't affiliate with the democrat and i'm well to the left of the dsa and i'm also not a member of the dsa”

    Briahna Joy Gray says she is not a Democrat, is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

    Current party registration and membership in a private organization are not established by the available public sources. Public biographical material indicates that Gray was registered as a Democrat in New York in 2016, but that does not determine her current affiliation; “well to the left of the DSA” is also subjective and lacks an agreed test.

    Sources