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

LIVE FROM MICHIGAN: Election Night Coverage With Mehdi, Prem, & Special Guests!

250 claims checked · August 2026

Watch on YouTube Jump to claims ↓
The receipts

Every claim, checked

  1. Claim 1
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:13
    “is Hayley Stevens, sitting congressman, running for open Senate seat against Abdul El-Sayed”

    Haley Stevens is a sitting member of Congress running for an open Senate seat against Abdul El-Sayed.

    Haley Stevens was serving in the U.S. House and ran in the August 4, 2026 Democratic primary for Michigan's open U.S. Senate seat against Abdul El-Sayed.

    Sources

  2. Claim 2
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:21
    “who ran for governor primary a few years back”

    Abdul El-Sayed previously ran in the Michigan gubernatorial primary.

    El-Sayed was a candidate in Michigan's 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

    Sources

  3. Claim 3
    Accurate93% confidence▶ 1:24
    “he is the progressive Bernie Sanders-endorsed candidate, and he's in the lead according to the polls.”

    Abdul El-Sayed is endorsed by Bernie Sanders and was leading in polling.

    Bernie Sanders endorsed El-Sayed. Polls were mixed over the campaign, but multiple late-campaign surveys placed El-Sayed ahead or near the top, so the statement is supported as a contemporaneous polling characterization.

    Sources

  4. Claim 4
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:32
    “17% of the votes are in, and Abdul is up 52 to 44.”

    At that point, 17% of the Michigan votes had been counted and Abdul El-Sayed led Haley Stevens 52% to 44%.

    This is a precise, time-sensitive snapshot of live election returns. The available post-election reports confirm the race and eventual close result but do not independently document the exact 17%-counted, 52%-44% snapshot described here.

    Sources

  5. Claim 5
    Unverifiable70% confidence▶ 2:11
    “there's you know only about 26% in right now Wesley Bell is up 70% to Cori Bush's 25%”

    In the 2026 Missouri primary, with about 26% of votes counted, Wesley Bell led Cori Bush 70% to 25%.

    The claim refers to a specific early-results snapshot, but the accessible reporting confirms the rematch and Bell's victory without preserving the exact 26%-counted 70%-25% figures.

    Sources

  6. Claim 6
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 2:29
    “a pack threw a bunch of money at Wesley Bell who challenged Cori Bush and defeated her”

    Wesley Bell defeated Cori Bush in the 2024 primary after outside PAC spending supported his challenge.

    Bell defeated Bush in the 2024 Democratic primary, and reporting documented approximately $8.6 million in outside spending by AIPAC's political arm supporting Bell or opposing Bush.

    Sources

  7. Claim 7
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:39
    “they are spending crazy amount much more than they spent against bell and even bowman they're spending something like 30 million dollars”

    AIPAC's affiliated spending in the Michigan Senate primary was about $30 million.

    CBS Detroit reported nearly $30 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending supporting Stevens, described as the organization's largest single-race investment. The broad attribution and comparison to both Bell and Bowman are not established by the cited reporting.

    Omits: The reported nearly $30 million figure refers specifically to AIPAC and affiliated groups backing Stevens, whereas the transcript attributes it more broadly to an unspecified "APAC pack" and does not clearly distinguish committed spending from total outside spending.

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

    Sources

  8. Claim 8
    False50% confidence▶ 2:39
    “it's the third highest or second highest a pack spend ever”

    The Michigan spending was the second- or third-highest AIPAC expenditure ever.

    Reliable reporting characterized the Michigan spending as AIPAC's largest single-race investment ever, not its second- or third-highest.

    Sources

  9. Claim 9
    Accurate88% confidence▶ 3:02
    “hayley stevens something like 60 million dollars spent on this race for hayley stevens”

    Approximately $60 million in outside spending had been spent on the Michigan Senate contest, largely supporting Haley Stevens.

    Contemporary reporting described more than $60 million in outside spending in the contest, while other reporting documented tens of millions spent by AIPAC and affiliated groups to support Stevens. The wording is approximate and does not clearly distinguish all outside spending from spending by Stevens's own campaign.

    Sources

  10. Claim 10
    Unverifiable67% confidence▶ 4:16
    “this is the third most expensive Senate primary in the history of the United States. It's the second most expensive of this year.”

    The Michigan Senate primary was the third most expensive Senate primary in U.S. history and the second most expensive Senate primary in 2026 at that point.

    The available reporting confirms that the Michigan contest was exceptionally expensive and describes it as the most expensive Democratic primary contest ever, while Texas reporting describes the Texas primary as the most expensive Senate race in history. Those sources do not establish the speaker's specific rankings of third overall historically and second in 2026, and the comparison depends on whether spending means candidate, committee, outside, advertising, or total spending.

    Sources

  11. Claim 11
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 4:27
    “Only Texas has had more spending in the Tallarico Paxton race.”

    The Texas Talarico-Paxton Senate primary had greater spending than the Michigan Stevens-El-Sayed primary.

    The Texas race was reported as the most expensive Senate primary in U.S. history, and Michigan was reported as exceptionally costly, but the reviewed sources did not provide a complete 2026 ranking proving Michigan was second and Texas was the only race above it.

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

    Sources

  12. Claim 12
    Unverifiable63% confidence▶ 4:27
    “something like $80 million spent on TV ads. Of course, the vast majority, $64 million for for Hayley Stevens.”

    Approximately $80 million had been spent on television advertising in the race, including approximately $64 million for Haley Stevens.

    Available reporting confirms very large television-ad spending and a roughly 12-to-1 advantage for Stevens-aligned groups, but the cited figures in the available sources are different, including more than $46 million in television advertising as of July 1 and $52.6 million in scheduled pro-Stevens advertising later in July. The exact $80 million/$64 million totals cannot be confirmed from reliable sources located.

    Sources

  13. Claim 13
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 5:55
    “I will note that actually the first two deaths linked to that”

    The first two deaths were linked to cyclosporiasis.

    The CDC's official surveillance page reported “Deaths: 0” for cyclosporiasis. A media report separately claimed that two deaths had been linked to a 2026 outbreak, but the authoritative CDC surveillance data available for verification did not support the transcript's assertion.

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

    Sources

  14. Claim 14
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 7:08
    “who won the congressional primary in pennsylvania recently is a proud socialist”

    Chris Rabb describes himself as a socialist.

    Chris Rabb’s primary victory is well documented, but the sources located for this review did not provide a reliable direct statement confirming that he calls himself a “proud socialist.” The ideological label may be used by supporters or commentators, but the specific self-description could not be independently confirmed.

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

    Sources

  15. Claim 15
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 7:18
    “abdul al-sid has gone out of his way to say he's not a socialist he's not a member of the dsa”

    Abdul El-Sayed has said that he is not a socialist and is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

    Reporting on El-Sayed’s campaign states that he rejects the socialist label and is not a member of DSA. This describes his public self-identification; it does not establish that commentators agree with his ideological classification.

    Sources

  16. Claim 16
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 7:39
    “when i beat the political establishment by 15 points”

    Chris Rabb won a congressional primary in Pennsylvania and finished 15 percentage points ahead of the second-place candidate.

    Chris Rabb won the primary with about 44% of the vote, while the next candidate received about 29.5%, a difference of roughly 14.5 points. However, “the political establishment” is not an operationally defined opponent, so the claim’s central characterization cannot be verified precisely.

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

    Sources

  17. Claim 17
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 7:39
    “it feels very similar to the night when milad kiros beat a 30-year incumbent and she's just 29”

    A person referred to in the transcript as “milad kiros” defeated a 30-year incumbent at age 29.

    The transcript appears to contain a possibly mis-transcribed name: no reliable source matching “milad kiros” and all the stated details was located. Because the identity of the person is unclear, the claim cannot be reliably tested as stated.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  18. Claim 18
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 9:00
    “is how much the pro-israel lobby is trying to invest into taking out candidates like you”

    Pro-Israel political groups invested substantial resources in an effort to defeat candidates such as Abdul El-Sayed.

    The claim is supported as a description of campaign spending in the 2026 Michigan Senate primary and other races. Reporting documented tens of millions of dollars in outside spending supporting Haley Stevens and opposing El-Sayed, including spending by AIPAC’s affiliated United Democracy Project.

    Sources

  19. Claim 19
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 11:45
    “the epstein files the israel's genocide in gaza this this massive expression of corporate greed”

    Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide.

    The claim uses genocide as a defined legal characterization. A UN Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, while Israel officially rejected that conclusion; the ICJ's proceedings had not produced a final merits judgment at the time of the available sources.

    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.

    Sources

  20. Claim 20
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 12:59
    “He won his primary, and he's going to win a safe seat.”

    Chris Rabb won the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District.

    Multiple reports state that Chris Rabb won the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. The quoted prediction that he will win the general election is not independently established, so this verdict addresses the stated primary win.

    Sources

  21. Claim 21
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 13:05
    “as a socialist member of Congress.”

    Chris Rabb is a democratic socialist.

    The Philadelphia Inquirer describes Rabb as a democratic socialist, matching the transcript's characterization of him as socialist.

    Sources

  22. Claim 22
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 13:09
    “we're seeing Will Lawrence, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, member of the Democratic Social America, is pulling pretty clear from Bridget Brink”

    William Lawrence co-founded the Sunrise Movement and was leading Bridget Brink in Michigan's 7th Congressional District Democratic primary.

    Lawrence's Sunrise Movement co-founder status and primary victory are supported. However, the transcript's phrasing combines that with an unsupported DSA-membership assertion and presents the standings as a simple two-person contest, omitting Matt Maasdam, another Democratic candidate.

    Omits: The transcript says Lawrence was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, but the cited election coverage identifies him as a co-founder of Sunrise Movement and does not establish the DSA-membership claim; it also describes the race as involving three Democratic candidates.

    Sources

  23. Claim 23
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 13:19
    “Looks like he's going to win that seat and take on the Republican Tom Barrett in the general.”

    William Lawrence would face Republican Tom Barrett in the general election after winning the Democratic primary.

    Election coverage reports that Lawrence won the Democratic primary and would face Republican incumbent Tom Barrett in the general election.

    Sources

  24. Claim 24
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 13:28
    “Looks like she's been beaten pretty badly tonight. So it's not happening everywhere”

    Cori Bush lost the 2026 Democratic primary in Missouri after attempting to return to Congress.

    The Associated Press reported that Wesley Bell defeated former Representative Cori Bush in their Missouri Democratic primary rematch, confirming that Bush's attempt to return to Congress failed.

    Sources

  25. Claim 25
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 13:49
    “we have congresswoman ilhan omar from the great state of minnesota joining us right now”

    Ilhan Omar is a congresswoman from Minnesota.

    Ilhan Omar is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota's 5th Congressional District.

    Sources

    • 1Ilhan Omar

      SupportsCongresswoman Ilhan Omar represents Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives.

  26. Claim 26
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 13:58
    “with abdul el sayed who you endorsed”

    Ilhan Omar endorsed Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan's Democratic U.S. Senate primary.

    The transcript itself attributes the endorsement to Omar, and contemporary coverage identifies El-Sayed as a progressive candidate in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary. The available reporting supports the endorsement context.

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

    Sources

  27. Claim 27
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 14:45
    “There is that famous recording where she says Israel comes to her in her dreams.”

    Haley Stevens said, “Israel comes to her in her dreams.”

    Reporting and a published video quotation document Stevens using the phrase that Israel comes to her in her dreams during a Hanukkah-related speech.

    Sources

  28. Claim 28
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 16:57
    “There is not a lobbying group that is raising and dumping, what, 60 million, 70 million dollars into a race to pick their preferred candidate”

    A lobbying group is raising and spending approximately $60 million to $70 million in the Michigan Senate primary to select its preferred candidate.

    The claim creates the impression that the pro-Israel lobbying group itself spent $60 million to $70 million in the race. Available reporting indicates approximately $30 million from AIPAC-affiliated groups in the Michigan Senate primary, while the larger figure refers to total outside spending, not solely that network.

    Omits: The documented spending figures distinguish between AIPAC-affiliated spending and total outside spending; in the Michigan Senate primary, AIPAC-affiliated groups were reported to have spent about $30 million backing Haley Stevens, while total outside spending exceeded $60 million.

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

    Sources

  29. Claim 29
    Misleading99% confidence▶ 17:36
    “People understand when you have a guaranteed $3.5 billion. And every year there is some sort of supplemental that they come up with that they have to add to that.”

    Israel receives a guaranteed $3.5 billion in U.S. military aid every year.

    The claim creates the impression of an automatic, guaranteed annual $3.5 billion payment. CRS says the U.S. pledge is subject to congressional appropriation, identifies the regular MOU-related amount as $3.8 billion, and describes $3.5 billion as a 2024 supplemental appropriation.

    Omits: The annual aid commitment is subject to congressional appropriation and is generally $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing plus $500 million for joint missile-defense programs, or $3.8 billion total under the MOU; the $3.5 billion figure was part of a 2024 emergency supplemental rather than a guaranteed annual amount.

    Sources

  30. Claim 30
    False50% confidence▶ 17:41
    “And every year there is some sort of supplemental that they come up with that they have to add to that.”

    Every year, the United States provides some supplemental aid to Israel in addition to the regular amount.

    The claim uses an annual universal qualifier. CRS identifies a major emergency supplemental in April 2024 but describes FY2025 funding as the regular base level under the MOU, not as an annual supplemental.

    Sources

    • 1U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Analysis

      BackgroundSince the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023 and Israel's subsequent conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, Congress has provided emergency supplemental military assistance to Israel and appropriated funding beyond the annual MOU terms for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs.

    • 2U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Analysis

      RefutesP.L. 119-4, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, provides FMF to Israel at the FY2024 base level ($3.3 billion).

  31. Claim 31
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 18:26
    “It is disingenuous when people say, well, it's just 3.5 billion, which is a tiny percentage of the annual budget, which it is.”

    The $3.5 billion in annual aid to Israel is a tiny percentage of the U.S. federal budget.

    The $3.5 billion figure corresponds to a specific annual Foreign Military Financing allocation and is indeed small relative to the federal budget. But presenting it as the complete annual aid figure omits the separate $500 million annual missile-defense commitment and supplemental appropriations.

    Omits: The statement treats $3.5 billion as the entire annual U.S. aid commitment, omitting that the 2016 U.S.-Israel memorandum provides $3.8 billion annually when missile-defense funding is included, and that supplemental appropriations are separate.

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

    Sources

  32. Claim 32
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 18:31
    “But they ignore the fact, as you say, the tens of billions of dollars in special appropriations and supplementals.”

    The United States approved tens of billions of dollars in supplemental or special appropriations related to Israel after October 7, 2023.

    Congressional Research Service materials document more than $14 billion in Israel-related funding requested in the October 2023 supplemental and roughly $67.3 billion in related Department of Defense budget authority across the 2024 national-security supplemental bills, including Israel-related amounts.

    Sources

  33. Claim 33
    Accurate88% confidence▶ 18:42
    “for example, the Iran war is costing us 30, 40, 50, 60 billion dollars.”

    The U.S. war with Iran is costing between $30 billion and $60 billion.

    Contemporary estimates place the direct cost of the 2026 Iran war within or near this range: Reuters reported a Pentagon estimate of $29 billion, while CSIS estimated approximately $34 billion to $42 billion. The upper end is an estimate rather than an established final cost.

    Sources

  34. Claim 34
    Misleading86% confidence▶ 19:48
    “he's happy with cutting aid to egypt which is the second biggest beneficiary”

    Egypt is the second-biggest beneficiary of U.S. foreign aid.

    Congressional Research Service reports that Israel and Egypt historically received the first and second largest amounts of U.S. foreign aid, but recent rankings differ because countries such as Ukraine have received much larger emergency assistance packages. The statement is accurate only with a historical or military-aid qualification.

    Omits: The claim omits the relevant time period and category of aid. Egypt has historically been the second-largest recipient of U.S. military aid after Israel, but it is not necessarily the second-largest recipient of total U.S. foreign assistance in every year.

    The phrase "second biggest beneficiary" was judged as a claim about total U.S. foreign aid generally, rather than the narrower historical ranking for military aid.

    Sources

  35. Claim 35
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 19:56
    “because they've spent, I think, something like $60 million in dark money for Hayley Stevens”

    AIPAC and affiliated groups spent about $60 million in dark money to support Haley Stevens in the Michigan Senate primary.

    Contemporary reporting described AIPAC and affiliates spending more than $30 million for Stevens and total outside spending above $50 million or roughly $60 million. The transcript conflates total outside spending with AIPAC spending and labels the entire amount dark money.

    Omits: Available reporting and FEC data support roughly $30 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending, but do not establish that AIPAC itself spent $60 million or that the full $60 million was dark money; the $60 million figure refers more broadly to outside spending in the race.

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

    Sources

  36. Claim 36
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 20:15
    “But we know a minimum of $30 million has gone into this race.”

    At least $30 million was spent by AIPAC-linked groups in the Michigan Senate primary.

    Multiple reports put AIPAC and affiliated-group spending in support of Haley Stevens at approximately $30 million or slightly below/above that amount, so the claim that at least $30 million went into the race is supported by contemporary reporting.

    Sources

  37. Claim 37
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 20:19
    “I think it's the most AIPAC has ever spent”

    AIPAC spent more in the Michigan Senate primary than it had ever spent in a single race.

    The Washington Post reported that AIPAC and affiliated groups’ approximately $30 million investment in the Stevens race was their largest investment ever in a single race.

    Sources

    • 1AIPAC has spent a record amount on Michigan’s Senate primary

      SupportsThe American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and its affiliated groups have spent close to $30 million backing Stevens — their largest investment ever in a single race — as they seek to defeat progressive favorite Abdul El-Sayed in the Aug. 4 primary.

  38. Claim 38
    Accurate84% confidence▶ 20:19
    “much more than they spent to unseat Jamal Bowman, Congressman Bush in 2024”

    AIPAC spent substantially more to defeat Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in 2024 than it had spent in earlier comparable races.

    Available reporting describes AIPAC-linked spending against Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush as record-breaking and totaling roughly $25 million across the two 2024 primaries. The comparison is broadly supported, though the transcript does not specify a precise earlier benchmark.

    Sources

  39. Claim 39
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 21:32
    “This is the primary for the Senate. Sorry, Senate. Sorry, Lieutenant Governor. It's Lieutenant Governor Flanagan, who's running for the empty seat that Senator Tina Smith, I believe, vacated.”

    Minnesota’s upcoming primary is for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Tina Smith, and Peggy Flanagan is running for it.

    The 2026 Minnesota election is a Senate race to succeed Tina Smith, who is not seeking reelection, and Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan is one of the Democratic candidates.

    Sources

  40. Claim 40
    False50% confidence▶ 21:44
    “Yes. And they're supporting Andrew Craig.”

    AIPAC is supporting a candidate named Andrew Craig in the Minnesota Senate primary.

    The candidate is U.S. Representative Angie Craig. The transcript’s identification of her as Andrew Craig is factually wrong, although reporting does describe AIPAC-related support for Craig-aligned spending.

    Sources

  41. Claim 41
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 21:44
    “They've already spent, I think, $20 million against Peggy Flanagan.”

    Outside groups supporting Angie Craig had spent about $20 million against Peggy Flanagan.

    Available reporting confirms substantial outside spending and AIPAC-related attacks in the race, but the specific approximately $20 million figure against Flanagan could not be confirmed from reliable independent sources.

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

    Sources

  42. Claim 42
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 22:18
    “Cori Bush, your fellow former congresswoman, former colleague in the House, former fellow squad member, looks to have lost her race tonight. She's pretty far behind in the numbers I saw. To Wesley Bell, who defeated her with APAC support in 2024.”

    Cori Bush lost her 2026 primary race to Wesley Bell, who had AIPAC support in 2024.

    AP reporting confirms that Wesley Bell defeated Cori Bush in their 2026 Democratic primary rematch and that Bell was again supported by AIPAC. Bell also defeated Bush in 2024 with support from AIPAC and affiliated groups.

    Sources

  43. Claim 43
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 24:06
    “It was a three-way race in Michigan, as you know.”

    Mallory McMorrow withdrew from a three-way Michigan Senate primary race.

    Reporting states that McMorrow suspended her campaign, converting a three-way Democratic Senate primary into a head-to-head race.

    Sources

  44. Claim 44
    Misleading90% confidence▶ 24:21
    “Kirsten Gillibrand, who runs that committee, the Democratic senator from New York, who famously accused Zoran Mamdani of fighting for global jihad, still never apologized publicly.”

    Kirsten Gillibrand chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and accused Zohran Mamdani of references to global jihad without publicly apologizing.

    Gillibrand was the DSCC chair and did make the global-jihad claim. However, she later apologized to Mamdani; characterizing her as having “still never apologized publicly” omits that apology and can imply that no apology occurred.

    Omits: Gillibrand did apologize to Mamdani after making the global-jihad remark, although reporting described the apology as a private phone apology rather than a public on-air or social-media apology.

    The phrase “never apologized publicly” is judged literally; she did apologize privately, so the statement creates a misleading impression that she never apologized at all.

    Sources

  45. Claim 45
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 26:49
    “Tea Party candidates won primaries in 2010 and then lost in the general.”

    Tea Party candidates won Republican primaries in 2010 but then lost some general elections.

    Several prominent Tea Party-backed nominees won Republican primaries in 2010 and lost the general election, including Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada.

    Sources

  46. Claim 46
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 26:53
    “In 2018, 2020, in other races, Republican candidates, crazy Republican MAGA candidates lost winnable races in Georgia, for example, where Trump backed weirdos in the past.”

    In 2018 and 2020, Trump-backed MAGA candidates lost winnable races in Georgia and elsewhere.

    Some Trump-endorsed or right-wing candidates did lose elections in Georgia and elsewhere, but the statement does not identify the candidates or define "winnable," "MAGA," or "weirdos" well enough to test the full assertion as stated.

    The intensifiers "crazy," "MAGA," "winnable," and "weirdos" are not consistently defined; the claim is judged as stated rather than under a narrower election-results reading.

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

    Sources

  47. Claim 47
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 27:19
    “Tom Barrett in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, the Republican, is going to love the fact that he's up against Will Lawrence, they say, who's leading in that primary right now”

    Republican Tom Barrett is the incumbent in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, and Will Lawrence was leading the Democratic primary at the time.

    Reliable sources confirm that Will Lawrence co-founded the Sunrise Movement and that he ultimately won the Democratic primary. However, the sources located did not independently verify his DSA membership, nor the precise live standings at the moment of the statement.

    The phrase "leading in that primary right now" refers to a time-specific snapshot during the video; the available sources confirm the eventual result but do not independently establish the exact standings at the moment spoken.

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

    Sources

  48. Claim 48
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 27:29
    “Mike Rogers, who's the Republican candidate in Michigan for the Senate, he wants to face Abdul El-Sayed, not Haley Stevens.”

    Mike Rogers is the Republican Senate candidate in Michigan and would prefer to face Abdul El-Sayed rather than Haley Stevens.

    Reporting described Stevens' campaign as claiming that Rogers admitted Republicans could beat El-Sayed, but also reported that Rogers declined to identify a preferred opponent and said he could defeat either Democrat. Presenting the preference as an established fact overstates the available evidence.

    Omits: Rogers publicly declined to say which Democrat he preferred and expressed confidence he could defeat either candidate; the preference was attributed to Stevens' campaign based on a private call, not directly confirmed by Rogers.

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

    Sources

  49. Claim 49
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 27:53
    “when i was both in michigan and wisconsin i met young people um you know and i say young but not too young but younger than me”

    Francesca Hong was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 2020.

    The quoted passage does not make a checkable claim about Francesca Hong’s election; it only mentions meeting young people in Michigan and Wisconsin. The speaker’s personal account that particular people voted in some elections and not others cannot be independently verified from the transcript.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  50. Claim 50
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 28:39
    “i will say you know i was in north dakota in 2010 uh and the republicans cleaned the house”

    Republicans performed strongly in North Dakota in 2010, including retaining control of both legislative chambers and defeating Democratic congressman Earl Pomeroy.

    Republicans won control of both chambers of the North Dakota legislature in the 2010 election, including the House. The wording is colloquial but substantively accurate under that reading.

    The phrase “cleaned the house” is interpreted as referring to Republicans winning control of the state House, not literally winning every House seat.

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

    Sources

  51. Claim 51
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 29:25
    “there were a lot of cases throughout this country when the Tea Party won, not because they were voting for French candidates, but they were voting for people who saw them, who listened to them, who spoke to the issues that they were experiencing.”

    The Tea Party won elections in many cases because candidates were perceived as listening to and representing voters, rather than because they were fringe candidates.

    The existence of Tea Party victories is well documented, but the claim assigns a broad, comparative causal explanation to "a lot of cases" without defining the cases, the relevant candidates, or how voter motivations would be measured. Available election results alone cannot verify that this was the reason rather than other factors.

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

    Sources

    • 1The Republican takeover in the states

      BackgroundThe intense focus on the coming struggles between President Obama and congressional Republicans obscures one of the most important and underreported results of the midterm elections: the GOP takeover in the states.

  52. Claim 52
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 29:46
    “You mentioned Wisconsin, of course, Francesca Hong, who we interviewed on the show a couple of weeks back.”

    Francesca Hong was an elected Wisconsin state legislator by the period being discussed.

    Although the quoted wording does not explicitly state her office, the surrounding discussion identifies Hong as a political candidate, and independent records show she was elected to the Wisconsin Assembly in 2020 and served as its representative from District 76.

    Sources

  53. Claim 53
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 31:10
    “I became the whip of the Progressive Caucus in my freshman year.”

    Ilhan Omar became the Congressional Progressive Caucus whip during her freshman year in Congress.

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus elected then-Representative-elect Ilhan Omar as its whip in November 2018, before she began her first term in January 2019.

    Sources

  54. Claim 54
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 31:58
    “You and Rashida Tlaib were the first Muslim women elected to Congress, if my memory serves me correctly.”

    Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were the first Muslim women elected to the United States Congress.

    Both Omar and Tlaib won House elections in November 2018 and were recognized as the first Muslim women elected to Congress.

    Sources

  55. Claim 55
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 32:04
    “If Abdul El-Sayed wins tonight and wins in the general, he will become the first Muslim member of the United States Senate in the history of this country.”

    If Abdul El-Sayed wins the Michigan Senate race, he will become the first Muslim member of the United States Senate.

    The claim is conditional, and the condition is accurate: reliable 2026 reporting describes El-Sayed as seeking to become the first Muslim U.S. senator, noting that no Muslim has previously served in the Senate.

    Sources

  56. Claim 56
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 33:07
    “who is a somali muslim immigrant the first Hijabi”

    Ilhan Omar was a Somali Muslim immigrant, and she was the first hijab-wearing member of Congress.

    Omar fled Somalia as a refugee, later immigrated to the United States, and became the first member of Congress to wear a hijab. The wording “first Hijabi” is understood here as first hijab-wearing member of Congress.

    Sources

  57. Claim 57
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 33:14
    “and Rashida Tlaib, who is of Palestinian descent, that are now going to be in Congress”

    Rashida Tlaib is of Palestinian descent.

    Tlaib is a Palestinian-American representative from Michigan; the claim accurately describes her ancestry.

    Sources

  58. Claim 58
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 34:01
    “another muslim congresswoman heading to the congress from new york city”

    Darializa Avila Chevalier is a Muslim candidate who is expected to become a congresswoman from New York.

    Avila Chevalier is Muslim and won the Democratic primary in New York's 13th Congressional District. However, at the time described she was only the party nominee; her general-election victory and congressional service were not yet certain.

    Omits: She had won the Democratic primary, but the November 2026 general election had not yet occurred, so she was not yet guaranteed to enter Congress.

    The intensifier "heading to the congress" is judged as implying an expected future entry, not merely that she won a primary.

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

    Sources

  59. Claim 59
    Unverifiable72% confidence▶ 34:32
    “We have 21% of votes in. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan is at 51.8%. Hayley Stephens is at 44.8%.”

    With 21% of the vote counted in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayed had 51.8% and Haley Stevens had 44.8%.

    Contemporary reporting confirms that the Michigan primary was still being counted and that El-Sayed led Stevens, but the available reliable sources located do not independently reproduce this exact 21%-counted snapshot and percentages.

    Sources

  60. Claim 60
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 35:10
    “when the uncommitted movement was getting very upset with Kamala Harris”

    The Uncommitted movement declined to support Kamala Harris because of opposition to the Biden-Harris administration's Gaza policy.

    The Uncommitted movement was a pro-Palestinian movement critical of the administration's handling of the Gaza war, and it declined to endorse Harris. The transcript's informal wording accurately describes that opposition, although "very upset" is not a quantified measure.

    Sources

  61. Claim 61
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 35:14
    “when Muslim voters in Dearborn were even voting for Trump.”

    Muslim voters in Dearborn voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

    Dearborn voted for Trump in 2024, and reporting specifically attributed part of that shift to Arab American and Muslim voters who opposed the Biden-Harris administration's Gaza policy. The wording does not claim that all Muslim voters supported Trump.

    Sources

  62. Claim 62
    Unverifiable82% confidence▶ 37:45
    “And we were proud to direct $400,000 into the race to support Abdul in his candidacy.”

    The organization directed $400,000 into the race to support Abdul El-Sayed.

    The statement is a specific campaign-finance claim, but the available reporting and public sources reviewed did not independently confirm that this organization directed exactly $400,000 into the race.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  63. Claim 63
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 38:23
    “at the same time as also note it's actually quite statistically small relative to the millions that are i mean of course 30 million just in this race”

    AIPAC and affiliated groups spent about $30 million backing Haley Stevens in the Michigan Senate primary.

    Contemporaneous reporting identified nearly $30 million in spending by AIPAC and affiliated groups to support Haley Stevens in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary.

    Sources

  64. Claim 64
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 38:49
    “AIPAC has a deeply unpopular agenda. Their unconditional support for Israel is a 90-10 issue among Democrats today, right?”

    Among Democrats, unconditional support for Israel is a 90-to-10 issue.

    The phrase “90-10 issue” has no agreed operational definition here: it could refer to sympathy, opposition to military aid, support for a ceasefire, or another question. A February 2026 Gallup poll found that 65% of Democrats sympathized more with Palestinians and 17% with Israelis, but that does not establish the specific 90-10 proposition stated.

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

    Sources

  65. Claim 65
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 39:00
    “Continuing to send weapons nearly three years into a extreme genocide is about as popular among Democrat voters as denying women their reproductive rights, denying climate change.”

    Weapons are still being sent nearly three years into what the speaker calls an extreme genocide in Gaza.

    The time reference is broadly consistent with the war beginning in October 2023 and the broadcast occurring in August 2026. However, whether Israel's conduct legally constitutes genocide is an unresolved dispute: a UN commission concluded that it does, while Israel formally rejects that conclusion.

    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.

    Sources

  66. Claim 66
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 40:22
    “At the same time, we're seeing the way the American public are also viewing those same images and for the first time really shifting in their opinions and really demanding that their government that represent the values that they claim to represent”

    American public opinion has shifted regarding images and policies connected to the Israel-Palestine conflict, with increased demands that the U.S. government change its approach.

    Recent polling does show increasingly negative American views of the Israeli government and greater concern about Israel’s conduct. However, the claim’s “for the first time” framing is misleading because comparable shifts had already been documented in earlier surveys.

    Omits: Public opinion had already shifted before this statement: Pew reported changes in views of Israel and Palestinians in 2022 and 2024, and documented further changes in 2025 and 2026.

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

    Sources

  67. Claim 67
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 41:03
    “not sending bombs and bullets to a foreign country while it commits genocide”

    Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

    The UN Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel was responsible for genocide in Gaza. Israel and the IDF have explicitly rejected the genocide allegation, creating a live dispute over applying the legal definition to the established facts.

    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.

    Sources

  68. Claim 68
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 42:11
    “there's a hundred odd members of what's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus within Congress. This is a group of 100 odd members who identify themselves as progressive”

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus has roughly 100 members who identify as progressive.

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus's official website describes the caucus as being made up of nearly 100 members and characterizes them as progressive members. The speaker's approximate wording, 'a hundred odd,' is consistent with the official description.

    Sources

  69. Claim 69
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 43:36
    “Final numbers in on Stevens versus El-Sayed, money numbers. Six outside groups spent $62 million for Stevens, giving her a nine-to-one, a nine-to-one spending advantage over Abdul El-Sayed.”

    Six outside groups spent $62 million supporting Haley Stevens, giving her a nine-to-one spending advantage over Abdul El-Sayed.

    Contemporary reporting confirms an extraordinary outside-spending advantage for Stevens, but reports the ratio as about 12-to-1 and describes AIPAC-affiliated spending as close to $30 million. The transcript's precise figures and ratio therefore create a materially misleading impression.

    Omits: The available reporting describes roughly $60 million in total outside spending and an approximately 12-to-1 outside-spending disadvantage for El-Sayed, not the stated nine-to-one ratio; the exact $62 million and group count are not independently confirmed by the cited reporting.

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

    Sources

  70. Claim 70
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 43:46
    “Half of that spend, $32 million, came from AIPAC, Super PAC.”

    At least $32 million of the spending supporting Stevens came from AIPAC’s super PAC operation.

    Post-primary reporting summarized the spending as $62 million for Stevens, with at least $32 million attributed to AIPAC. The wording is somewhat compressed because the spending was made through affiliated political groups rather than by AIPAC itself as a conventional PAC.

    Sources

  71. Claim 71
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 43:53
    “They spent more than any single group in a federal Democratic primary this cycle.”

    AIPAC’s super PAC spent more than any single group in a federal Democratic primary during the 2026 cycle.

    The underlying point that an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC was the dominant outside spender is supported. However, attributing the spending directly to AIPAC and presenting the exact $32 million as settled is imprecise and omits the distinction between AIPAC and United Democracy Project.

    Omits: Reporting identifies the approximately $32 million spender as United Democracy Project, an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC, rather than AIPAC itself, and describes the amount as close to $30 million in the race.

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

    Sources

  72. Claim 72
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 45:13
    “there's been two and a half years of live stream genocide”

    There had been two and a half years of a livestreamed genocide in Gaza.

    A UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel committed genocide in Gaza, dating the conduct from October 2023, which supports the speaker’s underlying assertion and approximate duration. However, Israel rejects that conclusion, and the final legal determination remains disputed among institutions, so the claim is contested rather than simply true or false.

    The intensifier "live stream" is descriptive rather than a defined legal term; the judgment concerns the underlying genocide assertion, based on the UN commission’s legal conclusion.

    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.

    Sources

  73. Claim 73
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 45:17
    “Israel has, part and parcel with the US, launched an incredibly devastating, stupid war on Iran”

    Israel and the United States launched a war against Iran.

    Reuters reported that Israel launched a preemptive attack on Iran on February 28, 2026, while a U.S. attack was also underway. The characterization of the war as "devastating" and "stupid" is opinion, but the underlying factual claim is supported.

    The adjectives "incredibly devastating" and "stupid" are evaluative; the factual portion judged is that Israel and the United States launched military attacks constituting a war with Iran.

    Sources

    • 1Israel and US launch strikes on Iran

      SupportsIsrael launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran on Saturday, and a United States attack is underway, plunging the Middle East into a renewed military confrontation and further dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s nuclear dispute with the West.

  74. Claim 74
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 45:26
    “Israel, as we reported on today, I recommend people check out Zotero.com, have yet another American teenager in detention right now.”

    Israel had an American teenager in detention at the time of the broadcast.

    Reliable reporting confirms that Palestinian-American teenagers have been held in Israeli detention, but the transcript does not identify which teenager or provide enough timing and case details to determine whether the specific claim was true at the broadcast moment. The phrase “yet another American teenager” is also ambiguous about the comparison set.

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

    Sources

  75. Claim 75
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 46:31
    “We've got John Nichols, executive editor at The Nation magazine, author of the book.”

    John Nichols is the executive editor of The Nation.

    The Nation identifies John Nichols as its executive editor.

    Sources

  76. Claim 76
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 46:36
    “Author of the book, It's OK to be Angry About Capitalism.”

    John Nichols co-wrote the book It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.

    The publisher lists the book as by Bernie Sanders with John Nichols, confirming Nichols's co-authorship.

    Sources

  77. Claim 77
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 48:03
    “In Missouri, voters rejected a strategy to take away the ability of Missourians to put issues on the ballot.”

    Missouri voters rejected a measure that would have made it harder to amend the state constitution through citizen initiatives.

    Missouri voters did reject Amendment 4, which would have changed the approval standard for citizen-led constitutional amendments. However, the measure concerned how initiatives pass, not whether citizens can put issues on the ballot, so “take away the ability” creates a false impression.

    Omits: The proposal did not eliminate Missourians’ ability to place issues on the ballot; it would have required constitutional initiatives to win a majority in every congressional district rather than a simple statewide majority.

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

    Sources

  78. Claim 78
    Accurate88% confidence▶ 48:16
    “That means they're going to have the ability to put union protections, wage increases, reproductive rights on the ballot.”

    Rejecting the Missouri measure preserved Missourians' existing ability to place citizen-initiated constitutional issues on the ballot, including union protections, wage increases, and reproductive rights.

    Because Amendment 4 was rejected, Missouri's existing citizen-initiative process remained in place. The claim concerns the ability to put such issues on the ballot, not whether any particular proposal would pass.

    Sources

  79. Claim 79
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 48:26
    “And I'll note that they have won on all those issues when they have done so.”

    Missouri voters had previously approved citizen initiatives concerning union protections, wage increases, and reproductive rights.

    The phrase "all those issues" is not sufficiently defined: it could refer to specific ballot measures, broad policy categories, or both. The transcript does not identify the measures or election years needed to test the universal-sounding assertion.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  80. Claim 80
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 48:32
    “In Kansas, there was an effort to get rid of the Supreme Court as it's currently organized and to create a situation where the Supreme Court it would become almost entirely partisan.”

    A Kansas proposal sought to replace the existing Supreme Court selection system with a more partisan system involving elections.

    Kansas did consider and ultimately reject a constitutional amendment changing how Supreme Court justices are selected. But saying it would “get rid of the Supreme Court” is inaccurate: the court would remain, while its selection method would change.

    Omits: The proposal did not abolish the Kansas Supreme Court; it would have replaced the current merit-based appointment and retention system with direct elections, with partisan campaigning and political activity permitted.

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

    Sources

  81. Claim 81
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 48:43
    “It was a big Republican initiative. They called it the most important initiative of the year for Republicans in this country. And it looks, we're early stages, but it looks like Kansans are going to overwhelmingly reject that.”

    The Kansas Supreme Court proposal was a Republican-backed initiative, and Kansas voters rejected it.

    The measure was promoted by Republican lawmakers and conservative groups, and AP reported that Kansas voters rejected it in the August 4, 2026 primary. The characterization as the Republicans' "most important initiative" is presented as a description of how supporters framed it.

    Sources

  82. Claim 82
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 49:14
    “When this race began, it was a three-way race, Mallory McMorrow, Abdul El-Sayed, Haley Steven, she was the favorite.”

    The 2026 Michigan Democratic Senate primary began as a three-way race involving Mallory McMorrow, Abdul El-Sayed, and Haley Stevens.

    Contemporary reporting identifies McMorrow, El-Sayed, and Stevens as the three initial Democratic Senate-primary candidates. McMorrow later suspended her campaign, leaving a two-person contest.

    Sources

  83. Claim 83
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 49:34
    “abdul say the progressive candidate who was for medicare for all abolish ice and not taking money from corporate packs”

    Abdul El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and rejecting corporate PAC money.

    Reporting and the campaign’s own materials describe El-Sayed as campaigning on Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and refusing corporate PAC contributions.

    Sources

  84. Claim 84
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 49:41
    “who happens to be a practicing muslim married to his high school sweetheart”

    Abdul El-Sayed is a practicing Muslim and is married to his high-school sweetheart.

    Sources support that El-Sayed practices Islam and is married, but the reliable sources located do not establish the specific characterization that his wife is his high-school sweetheart.

    Sources

  85. Claim 85
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 49:57
    “when mallory mcmurrow made the fatal decision to use islamophobia and let's be honest against abdul said by attacking him for campaigning once with hassan piker even though hassan piker did campaign with other democrats”

    Mallory McMorrow criticized El-Sayed for campaigning with Hasan Piker, and Piker had campaigned for other Democratic candidates.

    Reporting documents McMorrow’s criticism of El-Sayed’s association with Piker. Separate reporting says Piker campaigned for Democratic candidates, including Adam Hamawy in New Jersey.

    Sources

  86. Claim 86
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 50:55
    “the fact that he could win with this type of a record amount of money spent by him against APEC is remarkable”

    More than $60 million in outside spending was involved in the Michigan Senate primary, most of it from pro-Israel groups seeking to defeat El-Sayed.

    News reports support that the primary involved more than $60 million in outside spending and that AIPAC-affiliated groups made an unusually large investment for Stevens. The wording conflates total outside spending with spending by AIPAC against El-Sayed.

    Omits: The reported more-than-$60-million figure refers to total outside spending in the contest, while AIPAC and affiliated groups were reported to have spent roughly $30 million backing Stevens—not more than $60 million against El-Sayed.

    Sources

  87. Claim 87
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 51:36
    “And it seems like he will win. I don't think she has the margins to beat him right now”

    As of the time of the discussion, Abdul El-Sayed was leading Haley Stevens in the primary count.

    This is framed as a contemporaneous assessment rather than a final result. With 95% of votes counted on August 5, 2026, El-Sayed led Stevens 48.6% to 47.4%, although the race was not yet called.

    Sources

  88. Claim 88
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 52:11
    “I saw Dan Goldman, who lost a primary recently, John, to Brad Lander, who lost to another Jewish man,”

    Dan Goldman lost a recent Democratic primary to Brad Lander.

    Dan Goldman lost the 2026 Democratic primary for New York’s 10th Congressional District to Brad Lander.

    Sources

  89. Claim 89
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 52:11
    “to Brad Lander, who lost to another Jewish man,”

    Brad Lander lost a primary to another Jewish man.

    Lander did lose the 2025 mayoral primary, but the winner was Zohran Mamdani, who is identified by reliable sources as Muslim rather than Jewish.

    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 False. Recorded as Unverifiable.

    Sources

  90. Claim 90
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 52:20
    “The only reason he lost was because of Israel.”

    Israel was the only reason Dan Goldman lost his primary.

    Election results and reporting can document the candidates, issues, spending, and voter behavior, but they cannot establish that Israel was the sole reason for Goldman's defeat. The claim's exclusive causal wording is not empirically determinable from the available evidence.

    The intensifier 'only' makes this an absolute causal claim; the evidence can show factors associated with the result but cannot establish that Israel was the sole cause.

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

    Sources

  91. Claim 91
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 52:23
    “Dan Goldman was a big supporter of the genocide in Gaza.”

    Dan Goldman was a big supporter of genocide in Gaza.

    Goldman has strongly supported Israel’s military position and opposed efforts to characterize Israel’s conduct as genocide. However, the claim combines that political support with the legally and factually disputed characterization of Israel’s actions as genocide, so credible institutions and actors reach opposing conclusions.

    The checker returned Contested but could not quote a source on each side of the dispute, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    Sources

  92. Claim 92
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 52:38
    “Medicare for all, hugely popular.”

    Medicare for All is hugely popular.

    The claim asserts popularity but supplies no measure or threshold for 'hugely popular.' Polls can show varying levels of support depending on wording and whether taxes or loss of private insurance are specified, so the claim as stated is not sufficiently defined to judge.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  93. Claim 93
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 53:18
    “a candidate running for office has to spend all their time raising money and they have to be on the phone six, seven, eight, nine hours a day calling rich people, calling special interest groups and asking them for money.”

    A candidate running for office has to spend six to nine hours a day on the phone raising money from wealthy people and special-interest groups.

    The statement presents a broad requirement applying to candidates generally and gives a specific six-to-nine-hour daily range, but it does not define the class of candidates, campaign stage, or evidence needed to establish that this is generally mandatory.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  94. Claim 94
    Unverifiable76% confidence▶ 53:57
    “this is a candidate who went out energetically to every county in Michigan, that went out to small towns. Some of his first endorsements were from school board members and county commission members in outstate Michigan,”

    Abdul El-Sayed campaigned energetically in every Michigan county, visited small towns, and received early endorsements from school-board and county-commission members in outstate Michigan.

    Available reporting confirms that El-Sayed ran a grassroots, statewide campaign and received endorsements from local elected officials, but the specific universal claim that he campaigned in every county and the characterization of those endorsements as some of his first could not be independently confirmed from reliable sources.

    Sources

  95. Claim 95
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 57:00
    “let's be bold and say he's up 51.4 to 45.1 percent right now with a quarter of the votes in.”

    Abdul El-Sayed was leading Haley Stevens 51.4% to 45.1% with about one-quarter of the votes counted.

    Contemporaneous reporting confirms that El-Sayed held a narrow lead over Stevens while votes were still being counted, but the available reports do not verify this exact 51.4%-45.1% tally or the stated quarter-counted point.

    Sources

  96. Claim 96
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 57:12
    “He goes up against Mike Rogers, former congressman, Republican candidate for the Senate.”

    Mike Rogers was a former congressman and the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, whom the Democratic nominee would face in November.

    The Associated Press described Rogers as a former Republican congressman and reported that the winner of Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary would face him in November.

    Sources

  97. Claim 97
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 57:57
    “Donald Trump now has the lowest approval rating of any president since richard nixon”

    Donald Trump had the lowest approval rating of any president since Richard Nixon.

    Available reporting describes Trump’s approval as historically low relative to other presidents at the same point in their terms, with Richard Nixon lower in some comparisons. That does not establish the broader, timeframe-free claim that Trump had the lowest approval rating of any president since Nixon.

    Omits: The claim omits the comparison’s timeframe and polling measure; the reported historical comparison concerns approval at a comparable point in a presidential term, not an unqualified all-time ranking.

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

    Sources

  98. Claim 98
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 58:11
    “the fact that capital one the bank capital one shut down 300 bank accounts of don trump over fear of money laundering”

    Capital One closed more than 300 Trump-affiliated bank accounts in 2021 after its anti-money-laundering team flagged financial activity.

    Capital One said it closed more than 300 Trump-affiliated accounts in 2021 after an anti-money-laundering review flagged activity with characteristics of money laundering. The statement describes concerns, not a finding that Trump personally committed money laundering.

    Sources

  99. Claim 99
    False99% confidence▶ 58:22
    “the fact that the epstein files haven't been released”

    The Epstein files had not been released.

    The categorical claim that the Epstein files had not been released is contradicted by multiple DOJ releases. Although some material remained withheld or redacted, substantial Epstein-related records had been publicly released.

    Sources

  100. Claim 100
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 58:40
    “And it seems as of what we look at so far, he's up six, no matter what drop comes in. He's up six, he's up seven.”

    Abdul El-Sayed was leading Haley Stevens by six or seven points while about one-quarter of the votes were counted.

    Contemporaneous election coverage ultimately showed El-Sayed ahead by about one percentage point, with 96% of votes counted. The segment's six-to-seven-point margin therefore created a materially false impression about the state of the race, even though it referred to an earlier partial count.

    Omits: The later reported statewide count showed a razor-thin race: El-Sayed led Stevens 48.5% to 47.5% with 96% of votes counted, rather than by six or seven points.

    The time-sensitive phrase 'as of what we look at so far' was judged against the reported election count available after the segment; early unofficial returns can change substantially.

    Sources

  101. Claim 101
    Accurate91% confidence▶ 59:12
    “the fact again, that he could beat her despite being outspent nearly 10 to one”

    Haley Stevens was backed by roughly ten times as much spending as Abdul El-Sayed.

    Available reporting found Stevens-aligned groups outspending El-Sayed-aligned groups by more than 12-to-1 on television during the final weeks of the primary. Thus 'nearly 10 to one' is a reasonable, if rounded, description of the reported spending disparity.

    Sources

  102. Claim 102
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 59:22
    “You had Clyburn and Whitmer rolling up the sleeves.”

    Gretchen Whitmer and Jim Clyburn publicly supported Haley Stevens in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary.

    Whitmer endorsed Stevens, and Clyburn was also reported as backing her. The transcript's figurative description refers to their public campaign appearances and endorsements.

    Sources

  103. Claim 103
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:00:10
    “when James Carville, the Crypt Keeper, came out over the weekend and said, it's going to be either me or Hassan Piker in the Democratic Party. If Hassan Piker is part of the party, I'm out.”

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

    Reliable reporting confirms that Carville criticized Hasan Piker and said he did not want to be part of a party that tolerates or encourages hatred, but the specific 'either me or Hasan Piker' wording and the claimed ultimatum could not be confirmed from a reliable primary or independent source.

    Sources

  104. Claim 104
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 1:01:34
    “you have francesca hong another lefty a democratic socialist running for governor she's about to win it looks like the democratic gubernatorial primary”

    Francesca Hong is a democratic socialist running for governor of Wisconsin and was leading the Democratic primary in recent polls.

    Hong was documented as a democratic socialist running for Wisconsin governor, and July 2026 polling showed her leading the Democratic primary field. The primary had not yet occurred, so the claim is supported only insofar as it describes her polling position rather than a completed victory.

    The phrase "she's about to win" is treated as a description of her strong polling position, not as a guaranteed prediction of the election result.

    Sources

  105. Claim 105
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:01:49
    “Republicans who said abolish the police and abolish the Senate and blah, blah, blah, things she's tweeted in the past.”

    Francesca Hong had previously called for abolishing the police.

    Reliable reporting supports that Hong made past statements advocating defunding police as a step toward abolishing police. However, the transcript presents both “abolish the police” and “abolish the Senate” as things Hong herself tweeted, while the available evidence does not clearly establish that both were her personal tweets; the framing therefore creates a misleading impression.

    Omits: The statement compresses different sources of advocacy: reporting documents Hong's past call to defund police as a step toward abolishing police, while the “abolish the Senate” language appears to be associated with a DSA platform or related political material rather than clearly established here as Hong's own personal proposal.

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

    Sources

  106. Claim 106
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:01:55
    “she's tweeted in the past”

    Francesca Hong had previously tweeted support for abolishing the U.S. Senate.

    The transcript attributes multiple positions to past tweets but does not identify which tweet supports abolishing the Senate. Available reporting confirms that a DSA platform associated with Hong's political milieu calls for abolishing the Senate, but that is not sufficient to verify that Hong herself tweeted or endorsed that position.

    Sources

  107. Claim 107
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:03:35
    “wisconsin is the home of sewer socialism in the 20th century three of the mayors of milwaukee our biggest city from 1910 to the early 1960s were socialists”

    Milwaukee elected three Socialist mayors between 1910 and 1960.

    Historical sources identify Emil Seidel, Daniel Hoan, and Frank Zeidler as Milwaukee's three Socialist mayors, with their terms spanning 1910 to 1960. The transcript's "early 1960s" wording is a slightly broad approximation but does not change the substantive claim.

    Sources

  108. Claim 108
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:04:17
    “Wisconsin was the state that elected Robert M. LaFollette, the great progressive campaigner.”

    Wisconsin elected Robert M. La Follette, a prominent progressive politician.

    Robert M. La Follette was elected governor of Wisconsin in 1900 and became a leading figure in progressive reform. The claim does not specify which office, but it is accurate as stated.

    Sources

  109. Claim 109
    False98% confidence▶ 1:04:22
    “We elected a African American woman to statewide office in the 1970s, Bell Phillips.”

    Wisconsin elected an African American woman to statewide office in the 1970s, identified here as Bell Phillips.

    The underlying historical event occurred in the 1970s, but the person’s name is wrong. Wisconsin Historical Society sources identify the officeholder as Vel Phillips and date her election to 1978.

    Sources

  110. Claim 110
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 1:04:26
    “We elected Gaylord Nelson, who took on the corporations and newly established Earth Day.”

    Gaylord Nelson established Earth Day.

    Official U.S. government sources credit Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson with creating or launching the first Earth Day in 1970. The additional phrase about taking on corporations is broad, but the specific Earth Day assertion is accurate.

    Sources

  111. Claim 111
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:06:14
    “you mentioned in your newsletter this morning uh that there's this traveling squad now you spoke to chris rob earlier who's heading to congress from pennsylvania”

    Chris Rabb is heading to Congress from Pennsylvania.

    Chris Rabb won the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District in May 2026 and was described as likely to replace the retiring incumbent. Because the transcript says he is “heading” to Congress rather than that he had already taken office, the wording is supported by the available election context.

    Sources

  112. Claim 112
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:06:58
    “when we had the initial squad, it was this huge breakthrough moment, you know, four specifically, you know, powerful, interesting women all across the country representing this outsider politics.”

    The initial congressional Squad consisted of four progressive women elected in 2018.

    The original group commonly known as “The Squad” consisted of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib, all first elected to Congress in the 2018 midterms. “Powerful,” “interesting,” and “outsider politics” are characterizations, but the four-member 2018 description is factual.

    Sources

  113. Claim 113
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:11:10
    “after Zoran Mamdani's primary win and then his general election win”

    Zohran Mamdani won both the Democratic primary and the general election for New York City mayor.

    Mamdani won the 2025 Democratic mayoral primary and was subsequently elected New York City mayor in the November 4, 2025 general election.

    Sources

  114. Claim 114
    Misleading94% confidence▶ 1:11:48
    “The first person to sponsor Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill was Kamala Harris.”

    Kamala Harris was the first person to sponsor Bernie Sanders's Medicare for All bill.

    Harris was the first senator to endorse Sanders's proposal in 2017 and later co-sponsored it, but Sanders himself sponsored the bill. Calling Harris the first person to sponsor it confuses sponsorship with endorsement or co-sponsorship.

    Omits: The statement omits that Bernie Sanders was the bill's sponsor and that Harris was described as the first senator to endorse or co-sponsor his proposal, not the first person to sponsor it.

    Sources

  115. Claim 115
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:12:22
    “AIPAC, in retrospect, and the corporate interests that went after him have made him so much more powerful. they made him a bigger giant killer”

    AIPAC and corporate interests targeting Abdul El-Sayed made him more powerful and a bigger giant killer.

    Reporting documents substantial AIPAC-linked spending and negative advertising against El-Sayed, but the asserted causal effect—that this made him more powerful or a bigger giant killer—cannot be established from the available evidence.

    Sources

  116. Claim 116
    Misleading86% confidence▶ 1:13:56
    “there's the death star uh 150 million dollar effort by open ai palantir mark andreessen and their goal is to blow anyone out of the water who dares if you want to regulate ai”

    A $150 million political effort backed by OpenAI, Palantir, and Marc Andreessen aimed to defeat candidates who supported regulating AI.

    Reporting describes a large pro-AI political network backed by OpenAI-linked investors, Marc Andreessen, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, which opposed particular regulatory proposals. The transcript overstates the attribution to the companies themselves and presents the group's objective as opposing anyone who supports AI regulation generally.

    Omits: The claim omits that the reported effort was associated with OpenAI investors and other technology donors, not necessarily OpenAI or Palantir as corporate entities, and that the group publicly denied opposing all AI regulation.

    Sources

  117. Claim 117
    Accurate92% confidence▶ 1:14:12
    “and then there's an anthropic super pack like it wants to go toe to toe with them”

    Anthropic has a super PAC intended to compete politically with the pro-AI group described as the Death Star.

    Anthropic backed a super PAC focused on AI safety and regulation, positioning it against political groups funded by OpenAI-linked and other technology donors. The wording says it wants to compete with them, which is supported by the reporting.

    Sources

  118. Claim 118
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:14:32
    “our model is actually what Ben Wickler did in Wisconsin with Elon Musk's $30 million behind a Supreme Court grace last year. He comes in, he thinks he's going to buy the election. And by the end of the election, people were marching to the polls to vote against Elon Musk.”

    Elon Musk had $30 million behind a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and voters marched to the polls to vote against him.

    Musk and allied groups spent tens of millions supporting Brad Schimel, and the election was widely framed as a referendum on Musk; Schimel lost. However, the exact $30 million figure is not consistently supported, and the specific claim that people went to the polls to vote against Musk is rhetorical rather than a verified turnout finding.

    Omits: The claim omits that publicly reported Musk-related spending was generally estimated at more than $20 million or more than $25 million, rather than definitively $30 million, and that evidence of voters literally marching to the polls specifically to vote against Musk is not established.

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

    Sources

  119. Claim 119
    Accurate95% confidence▶ 1:15:04
    “the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They have 100-odd some members in Congress.”

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus has about 100 members in Congress.

    The caucus's official website describes it as having nearly 100 members, consistent with the transcript's approximate wording.

    Sources

    • 1About The CPC

      SupportsThe Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is made up of nearly 100 members standing up for progressive ideals in Washington and throughout the country.

  120. Claim 120
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 1:16:41
    “And then they went on to lose with Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania.”

    Chris Rabb won the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District after AIPAC-backed opposition.

    Chris Rabb won the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. Contemporary reporting described his opponents as benefiting from substantial spending by a super PAC previously funded by an AIPAC-aligned group.

    Sources

  121. Claim 121
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:16:41
    “And then they went 0 for 3 in New York.”

    AIPAC-backed candidates went 0 for 3 in New York primaries.

    The transcript does not identify the three New York races or candidates, and the available sources do not establish which races the speaker is counting. Without that defined set, the numerical claim cannot be reliably checked.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  122. Claim 122
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:16:52
    “what we saw with the Israel vote recently, with the money for offensive weapons, it's almost unheard of a couple months ago that 100 members of Congress would be voting for that proposition.”

    More than 100 members of Congress recently voted for money for offensive weapons for Israel.

    The documented vote involving more than 100 House Democrats was a vote to restrict or end military aid to Israel, not a vote to approve money for offensive weapons. The claim reverses the direction and substance of the vote.

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

    Sources

  123. Claim 123
    Misleading93% confidence▶ 1:17:19
    “Abdul coming up against $1 million and winning anyway in the state of Michigan is that on steroids.”

    Abdul El-Sayed won a Michigan primary despite facing about $1 million in opposition spending.

    The claim understates the documented scale of spending against El-Sayed and appears to mischaracterize the approximately $1 million figure. Reporting put AIPAC-affiliated spending for Stevens at nearly $30 million, while El-Sayed had about $1 million in outside spending of his own.

    Omits: The major reported opposition spending was nearly $30 million from AIPAC-affiliated groups backing Haley Stevens; the roughly $1 million figure reported for El-Sayed was his own outside spending, not the total amount he was opposing.

    Sources

  124. Claim 124
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:17:52
    “she emphasized that what can work on the coasts can't always work in Michigan or Ohio or Iowa”

    Elissa Slotkin said that approaches that work on the coasts may not work in Michigan, Ohio, or Iowa.

    Slotkin publicly described her theory of the case as winning in the middle of the country first and then applying that approach on the coasts. The transcript's characterization accurately reflects that regional contrast, though it paraphrases her wording.

    Sources

  125. Claim 125
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:18:33
    “she belittled AOC and Bernie for doing the oligarchy tour”

    Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez conducted a Fighting Oligarchy tour.

    Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did conduct a public 'Fighting Oligarchy' rally tour. The additional assertion that Slotkin belittled them is an attribution not established by the cited sources, but the underlying tour reference is factual.

    Sources

  126. Claim 126
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:19:46
    “So, Abdul is going to prove the concept.”

    Abdul El-Sayed was running against Haley Stevens in a Michigan Democratic Senate primary, with votes still being counted.

    The surrounding discussion identifies Abdul as Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens as his opponent. Contemporary reporting describes their Michigan Democratic Senate primary and says the result was still being counted.

    Sources

  127. Claim 127
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:19:51
    “I think she is such a better politician than Haley Stevens.”

    Alyssa Slotkin and Haley Stevens are politicians, with Slotkin being regarded by the speaker as a better politician than Stevens.

    The factual component is that Alyssa Slotkin and Haley Stevens are politicians; the comparative judgment that Slotkin is better is an opinion and is not independently verifiable as an objective fact.

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

    Sources

  128. Claim 128
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:21:11
    “especially after the Gaza, you know, October 7th.”

    The Gaza-related political shift mentioned by the speaker occurred after October 7.

    October 7 refers to the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, which preceded the ensuing Gaza war. The broader claim that this produced 'big strides' is subjective and not independently measurable, but the temporal reference itself is accurate.

    Sources

  129. Claim 129
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:21:16
    “You know, we've been knocking doors. We've been at the polls greeting people.”

    The speaker had been knocking on doors and greeting people at polling places as part of Abdul El-Sayed's campaign.

    This is a first-person account of the interviewee's own campaign activity. No independent source can establish from the available evidence whether this particular person performed those activities.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  130. Claim 130
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:21:30
    “They've been, you know, bombarded with texts from all types.”

    Political advertising in the Michigan Senate primary was unusually extensive, including major outside spending supporting Haley Stevens.

    Reporting confirms an exceptionally heavily funded Michigan primary with tens of millions of dollars in television advertising and outside spending, but the cited sources do not establish that voters generally were 'bombarded with texts.' The wording creates a broader impression than the evidence supports.

    Omits: The statement presents voters as being broadly bombarded with texts but gives no indication that the best-documented saturation was primarily television and digital advertising, with the scale varying by voter and location.

    Sources

  131. Claim 131
    Unverifiable84% confidence▶ 1:22:00
    “they darken his face a little bit and abdul a lot of racist trope is going on”

    A campaign advertisement featuring Donovan darkened his face and used racist tropes against Abdul El-Sayed.

    The transcript does not identify which Donovan, which advertisement, or provide a copy of the alleged ad. Available reporting documents accusations of anti-Arab or Islamophobic campaigning in the race, but it does not verify the specific claim that Donovan's face was darkened.

    Sources

  132. Claim 132
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:22:53
    “she didn't just get lots of money from apac 32 million dollars”

    AIPAC provided or spent $32 million supporting Haley Stevens in the Michigan Senate primary.

    Reports describe AIPAC and its affiliated groups as having spent close to $30 million backing Stevens. The transcript’s $32 million figure and attribution solely to “apac” overstate or simplify the documented amount and source of the spending.

    Omits: The reported spending was close to $30 million and was made by AIPAC and affiliated groups, not necessarily by AIPAC alone.

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

    Sources

  133. Claim 133
    Accurate82% confidence▶ 1:23:03
    “She had private support from Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand,”

    Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand privately supported Haley Stevens.

    Reporting identified Stevens as receiving private backing from Democratic Senate leadership, including Schumer and Gillibrand. The transcript accurately characterizes this as private support rather than a public endorsement.

    Sources

  134. Claim 134
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:23:11
    “She got endorsements from Gary Peters, the outgoing senator.”

    Gary Peters endorsed Haley Stevens.

    Multiple reports state that retiring Michigan Senator Gary Peters backed Stevens as his successor.

    Sources

  135. Claim 135
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:23:14
    “She got endorsements from the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who said she wouldn't endorse.”

    Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Haley Stevens.

    Whitmer publicly endorsed Stevens on July 24, 2026. The additional assertion that Whitmer had previously said she would not endorse is not established by the sources used here, but the endorsement itself is verified.

    Sources

  136. Claim 136
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:23:19
    “The Attorney General, Dana Nessel, former Senator Debbie Stabenow.”

    Debbie Stabenow and Dana Nessel endorsed Haley Stevens.

    The transcript fragment is elliptical but identifies Nessel and Stabenow among Stevens's major supporters. AP's election preview specifically lists former Senator Debbie Stabenow and Attorney General Dana Nessel among Stevens's endorsers.

    Sources

  137. Claim 137
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:23:59
    “because uh wesley ballin cory bush and missouri has been called”

    Wesley Bell defeated Cori Bush in the Missouri Democratic primary.

    Wesley Bell did defeat Cori Bush in their Missouri Democratic primary rematch, but Bush was no longer an incumbent in 2026. She had lost the seat to Bell in the 2024 primary, so describing the result as Bell defeating an incumbent Bush would be inaccurate.

    Omits: Cori Bush was a former representative and challenger in the 2026 primary, not a sitting incumbent; Wesley Bell was the incumbent representative.

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

    Sources

  138. Claim 138
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:25:39
    “eighty million dollars might just go poof”

    Eighty million dollars could be wasted if the spending does not produce the desired electoral result.

    The statement is speculative and does not define what would make the money 'go poof.' Spending is not literally recoverable after an election, but whether it was wasted depends on an undefined standard of success.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  139. Claim 139
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 1:25:48
    “you could probably defeat malaria in multiple sub-saharan countries with the money that's been spent on hayley stevens's behalf tonight 60 million ring”

    About $60 million spent on behalf of Haley Stevens could probably defeat malaria in multiple sub-Saharan African countries.

    The claim uses undefined terms—especially 'defeat malaria' and 'multiple sub-Saharan countries'—and provides no specific intervention, timeframe, or cost basis. The available evidence can establish the spending amount but not this counterfactual comparison.

    Sources

    • 1World malaria report 2025

      BackgroundThe World malaria report 2025 provides a comprehensive update on global and regional malaria data and trends.

  140. Claim 140
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:25:54
    “with the money that's been spent on hayley stevens's behalf tonight 60 million ring”

    More than $60 million was spent by outside groups in support of Haley Stevens in the Michigan Senate primary.

    Contemporary reporting said more than $60 million in outside spending had poured into the Michigan Senate contest, most of it supporting Stevens. The transcript's wording is rough, but its substantive amount is supported.

    Sources

  141. Claim 141
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:26:16
    “they even got big gretch gretchen whitmer who as you said promised not to get involved they got her to get involved”

    Gretchen Whitmer had said she would not get involved in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, but later endorsed Haley Stevens.

    Sources clearly establish that Whitmer endorsed Stevens, but the reviewed reliable reports describe her earlier decision not to run and her delayed involvement rather than documenting an explicit promise not to endorse or participate. The 'promised' portion cannot be confirmed from the available evidence.

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

    Sources

  142. Claim 142
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:26:47
    “he's in michigan's seventh congressional district he's at 41 uh bridget brink the establishment cabinet the former u.s ambassador to ukraine at 30 that's with almost half of the votes in he looks like he's on course for victory”

    William Lawrence was leading Bridget Brink in Michigan's 7th Congressional District primary and appeared on course to win while roughly half the votes had been counted.

    Reliable post-election reports confirm that Lawrence defeated Brink and Matt Maasdam, and confirm that Brink was a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. However, the specific 41%-to-30% snapshot with almost half the votes counted is not established by the sources reviewed.

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

    Sources

  143. Claim 143
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:27:07
    “He's trailing Sritanadar by about seven points right now with just a quarter of the votes in. So it's close, but he's behind.”

    Donavan McKinney was trailing Shri Thanedar by about seven points in Michigan's 13th Congressional District primary with roughly one-quarter of the vote counted.

    The transcript gives a time-specific vote snapshot, but the reviewed sources confirm the candidates and the race without reproducing the exact approximately 7-point, 25%-counted figures. The statement cannot be independently verified precisely from those sources.

    Sources

  144. Claim 144
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 1:27:07
    “donovan mckinney state rep lefty socialist backed by abdul el sayed bernie sanders”

    Bernie Sanders endorsed Donavan McKinney for Congress in Michigan's 13th District.

    Sanders' official endorsement page lists Donavan McKinney as an endorsed Michigan candidate, and McKinney's campaign lists Sanders among its endorsers.

    Sources

  145. Claim 145
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:27:18
    “Sritanadar is an AIPAC-back candidate. Man was once a Republican, then he claimed to be a leftist. Now he's a centrist.”

    Shri Thanedar had previously been a Republican before becoming a Democrat, and subsequently presented himself as a leftist and then a centrist.

    The statement combines several politically loaded identity claims, but no reliable source reviewed establishes all three propositions—past Republican affiliation, a self-description as a leftist, and current identification as a centrist—as defined factual facts. “Centrist” and “leftist” also lack a consistent operational definition here.

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

    Sources

  146. Claim 146
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:29:36
    “100 the latest results 33 of the votes in abdul said at 49.7 hailey stevens at 46.7 there's only”

    At the time of the report, about 33% of votes had been counted, with Abdul El-Sayed at 49.7% and Haley Stevens at 46.7%, a three-point difference.

    Contemporary reporting confirms that El-Sayed held a narrow early lead over Stevens while votes were still being counted, but the available reliable sources do not preserve or independently verify this exact 33%-counted, 49.7%-to-46.7% snapshot.

    Sources

  147. Claim 147
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:29:59
    “And Mallory McMurray, who pulled out, is at 18,000, by the way, still, despite having pulled out.”

    Mallory McMorrow received about 18,000 votes even after suspending her campaign.

    Reliable sources confirm that McMorrow suspended her campaign before the August 4 primary and that votes for her could still be counted because ballots had already been mailed. However, the exact approximately 18,000-vote total at that moment could not be independently verified from the available sources.

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

    Sources

  148. Claim 148
    Misleading84% confidence▶ 1:30:58
    “that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies at the federal and state levels have multiple plans in place, in play, to try and rig these elections, to try and make sure that no matter how well Democrats do, Republicans retain control of the Senate and House by hook or by crook.”

    Donald Trump and his MAGA allies have multiple plans at the federal and state levels to rig the 2026 elections so Republicans retain control of the Senate and House.

    There is substantial reporting that the Trump administration and allied Republicans pursued election-related changes, federal control proposals, voter-data efforts, and redistricting intended to benefit Republicans. However, the stronger framing that multiple actors have a proven plan to rig elections and guarantee GOP control is not established by the evidence cited.

    Omits: The claim omits that the documented measures are proposals, administrative actions, litigation, and alleged groundwork whose legal status and effect remain disputed; reliable reporting does not establish a proven coordinated plan that would ensure Republican control regardless of Democratic performance.

    Sources

  149. Claim 149
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:31:51
    “Trump and Republicans are plotting to rig and steal the midterm elections.”

    Trump and Republicans are plotting 19 ways to rig and steal the midterm elections.

    The claim uses undefined terms—especially “plotting,” “rig,” and “steal”—and does not identify the alleged 19 actions. Individual election-related policies or conduct could be evaluated separately, but this sweeping allegation is not sufficiently operationalized to verify as stated.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  150. Claim 150
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:32:13
    “whether it would be the SAVE Act, which obviously has not passed yet and is really tied up on Capitol Hill right now”

    The SAVE Act had not passed at the time of the statement and was tied up in Congress.

    The bill was not enacted into law, and it faced continued congressional obstacles. However, describing it simply as having “not passed” omits that the House passed it on April 10, 2025, so the wording creates the impression that it had cleared no chamber.

    Omits: The SAVE Act passed the House of Representatives on April 10, 2025; it had not become law because Senate action was still pending.

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

    Sources

  151. Claim 151
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:33:47
    “during the tail end of the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly campaigned on the campaign trail”

    During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would use federal power to withhold California wildfire aid if state officials did not meet his demands.

    Contemporaneous reporting documented multiple 2024 campaign statements in which Trump threatened to withhold federal wildfire or disaster aid from California unless the state or its officials adopted policies he demanded.

    Sources

  152. Claim 152
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:34:14
    “i am going to use the weight of the federal government to punish blue states to threaten to withhold aid including potentially life-saving federal emergency wildfire aid something that is not supposed to actually come with strings attached to places like California if they don't give in to my demands.”

    Trump said he would withhold potentially life-saving federal emergency wildfire aid from blue states that did not give in to his demands.

    Trump did publicly threaten to withhold California wildfire or disaster aid unless California met policy demands. But the statement broadens those documented California threats into a general campaign to punish blue states, which the cited evidence does not establish.

    Omits: The documented 2024 campaign threats specifically concerned California and particular policy demands; the cited evidence does not establish a campaign pledge covering “blue states” generally.

    The intensifier and plural generalization “blue states” were judged as stated. The narrower claim that Trump threatened to condition California wildfire aid on policy concessions is supported.

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

    Sources

  153. Claim 153
    Unverifiable83% confidence▶ 1:34:52
    “some of his top legal and political advisors got to work crafting draft policy memos, draft legal papers to be used if he re-entered the White House in 2025.”

    Trump’s senior legal and political advisers prepared draft policy memoranda and legal papers for a possible return to the White House in 2025 before he was reelected.

    The claim identifies a specific pre-election drafting effort, but the available reliable sources reviewed here do not document those particular memos or establish when they were prepared. Trump was in fact elected in 2024 and inaugurated on January 20, 2025, but that does not verify the alleged preparatory documents.

    Sources

  154. Claim 154
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:35:07
    “These people were led, of course, by Trump's top policy czar, Stephen Miller”

    Stephen Miller led the advisers involved in preparing these draft policies.

    Stephen Miller has held a senior policy role in the Trump administration, but the sources reviewed do not establish that he led the specific pre-election drafting group described in the transcript.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  155. Claim 155
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 1:35:14
    “Trump's threats to withhold all kinds of aids, whether it had to do with food, wildfire prevention or emergency aid”

    The Trump administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from states unless they change voting practices.

    The Associated Press reports that the administration threatened to withhold some federal funding from states that did not make changes to voting practices. It also separately reported threats involving billions in federal money to Minnesota, including funds related to food aid and health care.

    Sources

    • 1Trump administration ramps up pressure on state election officials

      SupportsPresident Donald Trump’s administration is threatening to withhold some federal funding from states that don’t make changes to voting practices and is warning state election officials that they face arrest if they don’t remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

    • 2Trump administration puts financial pressure on Minnesota

      SupportsPresident Donald Trump’s administration is also lashing out at the state by threatening to withhold billions in federal money, much of it intended to help low-income families with food aid, health care and child care — and with a new lawsuit against the state.

  156. Claim 156
    Accurate93% confidence▶ 1:35:49
    “trump still is refusing to publicly admit that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020.”

    Trump continues to refuse to publicly admit that he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

    FactCheck.org reported in July 2026 that Trump continued to suggest that the 2020 election was rigged and had never backed up that claim. It also states that the 2020 election was one Trump lost, supporting the transcript’s description of his continued refusal to acknowledge the result.

    Sources

    • 1FactChecking Trump’s Election Security Speech

      SupportsHe made one reference to never watching “a stolen election again,” but otherwise suggested, rather than outright claimed, that the 2020 election, which he lost, had been “rigged,” as he has often said and has never backed up.

  157. Claim 157
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 1:35:54
    “Now that he's been re-elected, it's been a year and a half, at least, of them trying to do this”

    Trump was reelected in 2024, and the administration had been attempting these actions for about a year and a half by the time of the recording.

    Trump won the 2024 presidential election and was inaugurated on January 20, 2025. A recording made roughly eighteen months later would accurately describe the elapsed period as about a year and a half, although the exact duration depends on the recording date.

    Sources

  158. Claim 158
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:37:00
    “we will make your problems go away or we will unfreeze or not try to stand in the way in hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars of federal aid to your state if you do these things that we want on elections”

    The administration has been using threatened federal funding to pressure states to change election practices.

    Reporting supports both federal funding threats and separate pressure to alter state election practices. However, the transcript merges those strands into an established, direct bargain in which aid would be released in exchange for election changes, a specific linkage not demonstrated by the sources reviewed.

    Omits: The transcript presents the threatened aid as being conditioned specifically on states changing election policies, but the cited reporting describes separate funding threats involving immigration, fraud allegations, social programs, and election-related voting-practice demands; it does not establish that every cited funding threat was a direct quid pro quo for election changes.

    Sources

  159. Claim 159
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:37:47
    “But the midterms are three months away.”

    The 2026 federal midterm election is approximately three months away.

    The discussion occurred around August 5, 2026, and Michigan’s official election information lists the August 4 primary and the November 3, 2026 general election. Thus the November midterms were roughly three months away, allowing for ordinary rounding.

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

    Sources

  160. Claim 160
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 1:38:11
    “where he kept uh lying about 2020 saying we have to make 2024 too big to rick he said that over and over and over again”

    Donald Trump repeatedly used the phrase “too big to rig” during the 2024 campaign while falsely claiming that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged.

    Contemporary reporting documented Trump repeatedly using “too big to rig” in 2024 and continuing to promote the false claim that widespread fraud caused his 2020 loss.

    Sources

  161. Claim 161
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:38:25
    “that is what the democratic party and democratic politicians are actually saying including representative raskin and a lot of their public messaging”

    Democrats, including Representative Jamie Raskin, have publicly and privately adopted the phrase “too big to rig” or a similar message for the 2026 election.

    A Democratic-aligned voter organization uses the slogan “Make 2026 too big to rig,” but the available reliable evidence does not establish the broader attribution to the Democratic Party, nor specifically to Representative Jamie Raskin, including the claimed private use.

    Sources

  162. Claim 162
    Unverifiable97% confidence▶ 1:40:36
    “We have 35% of the vote in. Abdul will say it is at 49.8%, almost at the 50% mark.”

    The live Michigan count had reached 35% of the vote, with Abdul reporting a result of 49.8%.

    The transcript does not identify the Michigan election, the office or race being counted, the date, or who “Abdul” is, so the numerical update cannot be independently matched to a specific official tally.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  163. Claim 163
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:40:46
    “Haley Stevens is at 46.5%.”

    Haley Stevens had 46.5% of the vote at the point being discussed.

    The transcript does not identify the election, reporting snapshot, or source for the 46.5% figure. Later reporting on the same Michigan primary gives different snapshots, including Stevens at 47.4% with 95% counted, but does not establish whether 46.5% was accurate at the earlier moment.

    Sources

  164. Claim 164
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:40:48
    “So it's a little over three points between them around, oh, it's just kind of again about 18,000 votes.”

    The difference between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens was approximately 18,000 votes.

    Reliable reports describe the race as a narrow, evolving lead, but they do not provide the specific contemporaneous margin of slightly more than three points or approximately 18,000 votes. Because election totals changed during the count and the exact snapshot cannot be independently reconstructed from the available sources, this claim cannot be confirmed or refuted.

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

    Sources

  165. Claim 165
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:42:19
    “in part fueled by how massively Trumpy the Israeli mainstream politics have gotten,”

    Israel's mainstream politics have become massively aligned with Donald Trump and Trumpism.

    The claim uses the undefined predicate "Trumpy" and the intensifier "massively," without specifying whether it refers to voters, parties, policy, or particular leaders. Reliable reporting supports increased alignment between Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump and greater partisan polarization over Israel, but it does not establish this exact broad formulation.

    The intensifier "massively" and the undefined term "Trumpy" make the claim substantially broader and less operationalized than the underlying observation that Israeli politics have become more closely aligned with Trump and the Republican Party.

    Sources

  166. Claim 166
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:44:17
    “You did a video for us where you asked members of Congress about Israel, about Americans being killed by Israel.”

    Americans have been killed in the occupied West Bank by Israeli forces or Israeli settlers.

    Multiple American and Palestinian-American citizens have been killed in the West Bank in incidents attributed by reporting to Israeli forces or Israeli settlers. The wording "by Israel" is broad, but it is substantively supported by documented cases involving Israeli forces and settlers.

    Sources

  167. Claim 167
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:44:31
    “Susan Collins got very upset. She got in the car and locked her door.”

    Susan Collins became upset and locked the door of her car when approached.

    The claim describes a specific incident, but the available reliable sources searched did not independently document whether Collins became upset or locked her car door. Without the underlying video or corroborating reporting, it cannot be confirmed or refuted.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  168. Claim 168
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:44:35
    “She's in a tight race in Maine, of course, in the general election against Troy Jackson, who's replaced Graham Platinum.”

    Susan Collins is in a general-election race in Maine against Troy Jackson, who replaced Graham Platner as the Democratic nominee.

    Reliable election coverage reports that Troy Jackson was selected to replace Graham Platner as the Democratic Senate nominee and will face Republican Sen. Susan Collins in the November general election. The sources do not establish a precise definition of "tight," but the core matchup claim is accurate.

    The intensifier "tight" was judged as a general characterization of a competitive race, not as a claim about a specific polling margin.

    Sources

  169. Claim 169
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:48:09
    “95% of members of Congress win re-election, right?”

    About 95% of members of Congress win reelection.

    The commonly cited rate is approximately 95% among incumbents who seek another term. The statement omits the denominator and therefore gives the impression that 95% of all congressional members win reelection, even though some do not run again.

    Omits: The figure applies to members who seek reelection, not all members; the Congressional Research Service separately reports that some members do not seek reelection.

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

    Sources

  170. Claim 170
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:48:17
    “What is making our current politics so interesting is that a lot of incumbents are losing now for the first time.”

    Many congressional incumbents are losing now, supposedly for the first time.

    The statement does not specify the election cycle, the number or proportion meant by "a lot," or the comparison period implied by "for the first time." Available evidence shows incumbent defeats occur in multiple recent cycles, but it cannot establish this exact, undefined formulation.

    The intensifiers "a lot," "now," and "for the first time" are undefined. The claim was judged as stated rather than as the weaker claim that some incumbents have recently lost.

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

    Sources

  171. Claim 171
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:48:23
    “Primary insurgent candidates are winning.”

    Primary insurgent candidates are winning congressional races.

    Although the statement is nonspecific about how many races or which cycle, credible election analysts documented incumbent losses to primary challengers in the 2026 cycle, including on the opening night of the primaries.

    Sources

  172. Claim 172
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:48:25
    “I mean, there are over 200 House Democrats.”

    There are more than 200 House Democrats.

    The official August 3, 2026 list of House members identifies 212 Democrats, which is more than 200.

    Sources

  173. Claim 173
    Unverifiable93% confidence▶ 1:49:51
    “this she a 29 year old person just unseated someone who took office 29 years ago and she”

    A 29-year-old woman unseated an incumbent who had taken office 29 years earlier.

    The excerpt does not identify either person, the office, or the election, so the age and 29-year tenure cannot be reliably checked from the statement alone.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  174. Claim 174
    Unverifiable72% confidence▶ 1:51:04
    “abdul al-sayed at 49.7 percent we have hailey stevens at 46.7 only three points between them only around 17 000 votes between them that's with 37 of the votes in”

    Abdul El-Sayed had 49.7% and Haley Stevens had 46.7%, a roughly three-point margin and about 17,000 votes, with 37% counted.

    Contemporaneous reporting confirms El-Sayed led Stevens while approximately 37% of the vote was counted, but the available reliable sources do not preserve or verify these exact percentages and vote-margin figures.

    Sources

  175. Claim 175
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:51:17
    “it's nearly 11 p.m eastern we do not have a result the networks have not called this race neither candidate has crossed 50 we got 37 of the votes”

    By nearly 11 p.m. Eastern, the Michigan Senate primary had not been called, neither candidate had crossed 50%, and only 37% of votes had been counted.

    The statement is a time-specific snapshot of election-night reporting. The available sources confirm the race was unresolved early in the count, but do not independently document the networks' call status or the exact moment described.

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

    Sources

  176. Claim 176
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:51:28
    “cory bush seems to have lost her re-election race uh well her attempt to get back her seat against incumbent Wesley Bell, who beat her in 2024.”

    Cori Bush appeared to have lost her 2026 reelection attempt against incumbent Wesley Bell, who defeated her in the 2024 primary.

    Wesley Bell won the 2026 Democratic primary rematch against Cori Bush, and reliable reporting states that he also ousted her in the 2024 primary.

    Sources

  177. Claim 177
    Unverifiable80% confidence▶ 1:51:40
    “Over in Michigan's 13th district, Sri Tanada, the sitting congressman, is holding on against a very strong democratic socialist challenge from Donovan McKinney, 53.8 to 46.2.”

    Shri Thanedar was leading Donavan McKinney 53.8% to 46.2% in Michigan's 13th District primary.

    Reliable post-election reporting confirms that McKinney challenged incumbent Shri Thanedar, but it reports a different later tally—McKinney leading 51.6% to 48.4%—and does not verify the precise 53.8%–46.2% snapshot cited in the transcript.

    Sources

  178. Claim 178
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:51:52
    “William Lawrence, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is leading by a big way against establishment candidate Bridget Brink, who's on 29.5 percent. William Lawrence is on 42.7 percent.”

    William Lawrence, a Sunrise Movement co-founder and DSA member, was leading Bridget Brink 42.7% to 29.5% in Michigan's 7th District primary.

    Lawrence did win the primary and is identified as a Sunrise Movement co-founder, but the framing omits the three-way nature of the race and gives an early tally that does not match the later reported result. That omission can create the false impression that Brink was Lawrence's only serious opponent.

    Omits: The statement presents the race as an early Lawrence-versus-Brink contest and omits Matt Maasdam, who was also a major candidate and whose votes affected the margin; reliable reporting says Lawrence won the three-way primary by 15 points.

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

    Sources

  179. Claim 179
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 1:52:54
    “brad lander who is former comptroller of new york city and is now a congressional candidate in new york city having won the democratic primary nomination”

    Brad Lander is the former New York City comptroller and won the Democratic primary for New York's 10th Congressional District.

    Brad Lander previously served as New York City comptroller and won the June 2026 Democratic primary for New York's 10th Congressional District.

    Sources

  180. Claim 180
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 1:53:37
    “And you defeated Dan Goldman, who was the incumbent congressman. 32 points, let's say. Yeah, you beat him quite handsomely.”

    Brad Lander defeated incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in New York's 10th Congressional District by about 32 percentage points.

    Lander's final reported share was approximately 65.8% to Goldman's 34.0%, a margin of about 31.8 percentage points, which reasonably rounds to 32 points.

    Sources

  181. Claim 181
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:53:37
    “That's New York's 10th congressional district. And you defeated below 14th Street and a big chunk of Brooklyn.”

    New York's 10th Congressional District includes Lower Manhattan and a substantial part of Brooklyn.

    Reliable election coverage describes the district as covering Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, matching the speaker's geographic characterization. The phrase "below 14th Street" is an informal description rather than a precise boundary claim.

    Sources

  182. Claim 182
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 1:54:56
    “The vast majority of the Democratic base says this is a genocide. War crimes are being committed. We need to put restrictions on arms sales to Israel.”

    The vast majority of Democratic voters say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, that war crimes are being committed, and that arms sales to Israel should be restricted.

    The claim bundles several assertions and does not define the population, time period, or evidence threshold for “the vast majority.” The legal and attitudinal components require separate, specific measures, so the statement cannot be reliably judged as a single factual claim from the available evidence.

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

    Sources

  183. Claim 183
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 1:55:09
    “I should point out, Dan Goldman is Jewish. You are also Jewish.”

    Dan Goldman and Brad Lander are Jewish.

    Sources identify both Goldman and Lander as Jewish politicians. CBS also quoted Lander referring to himself as one of the Jewish members of Congress after his primary victory.

    Sources

  184. Claim 184
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 1:55:24
    “the voters of the 10th district decided to replace one Jewish Democrat with another.”

    Democratic voters replaced one Jewish Democrat with another in New York's 10th Congressional District.

    The primary replaced incumbent Democrat Dan Goldman with Democratic nominee Brad Lander, and both are identified in reliable reporting as Jewish.

    Sources

  185. Claim 185
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 1:56:22
    “who died of als after the just most courageous seven-year fight”

    Ady Barkan died of ALS after approximately a seven-year fight with the disease.

    Barkan was diagnosed with ALS in 2016 and died in November 2023, making the illness approximately a seven-year struggle.

    Sources

  186. Claim 186
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 1:56:22
    “he's a person of of jewish and Israeli heritage, Adi Barkan, but a fierce critic of the occupation”

    Ady Barkan had Jewish and Israeli heritage and supported Medicare for All.

    Sources describe Barkan as Jewish, the son of Israeli immigrants, and a prominent Medicare-for-All advocate. The cited sources support the heritage and health-care portions of the statement.

    Sources

  187. Claim 187
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:56:35
    “Got bankrupted by his own health bills.”

    Ady Barkan was bankrupted by his own health-care bills.

    Sources document severe financial strain, including approximately $9,000 per month in home-care costs and concern that paying out of pocket would bankrupt the family. They do not establish that Barkan was actually bankrupted by medical bills.

    Omits: Barkan and his family faced substantial medical and home-care expenses and feared bankruptcy, but the cited accounts describe fundraising and the risk that paying costs out of pocket would bankrupt the family, not that he was actually bankrupted.

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

    Sources

  188. Claim 188
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 1:57:22
    “dan goldman did not support medicare for all when he won his congressional seat four years ago then he ran as the moderate”

    Dan Goldman did not support Medicare for All when he won his congressional seat four years earlier, but later signed on to it.

    Reporting on Goldman’s 2022 campaign describes him as supporting a public option and private insurance while opposing Medicare for All. His current congressional profile identifies him as an original co-sponsor of the Medicare for All Act, supporting the claim that he later signed on.

    Sources

    • 1Dan Goldman

      SupportsDuring his 2022 campaign, Goldman said that he believes healthcare is a fundamental right and supported a public option and private health insurance while opposing Medicare for All.

    • 2Meet Dan Goldman

      BackgroundCongressman Dan Goldman is a former federal prosecutor and lifelong advocate for working families who proudly represents New York’s 10th Congressional District.He’s running for re-election to get justice for our most vulnerable New Yorkers, tackle corruption and wealth inequality, and defend our democracy.

    • 3Dan’s Record

      SupportsDan has cosponsored game-changing policies like Medicare for All Act, the Green New Deal, and Universal Childcare.

  189. Claim 189
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 1:57:26
    “he won with about 25 of the vote they split the vote yeah it's a progressive district but the three progressive candidates split about three quarters of the vote”

    Goldman won his 2022 Democratic primary with roughly 25% of the vote in a crowded field, while progressive candidates divided much of the remaining vote.

    Goldman’s approximately 25.8% share is supported, and progressive votes were divided. However, the primary had a much larger field than three progressive candidates, so the numerical framing materially oversimplifies how the remaining vote was distributed.

    Omits: Goldman received about 25.8%, but the remaining vote was divided among more than three candidates; the field included 13 challengers, so saying three progressive candidates split about three quarters of the vote is inaccurate.

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

    Sources

  190. Claim 190
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 1:58:11
    “this working class Dominican in New Jersey who won a largely white suburban district. And she is a strong supporter of Palestinian human rights and doesn't want to spend any money for Netanyahu's wars.”

    Analilia Mejia won a largely white suburban New Jersey district and supports Palestinian human rights while opposing spending on Netanyahu’s wars.

    Mejia won the Democratic primary in New Jersey’s suburban 11th District, which is reported as majority white. Reporting also characterizes her as strongly critical of Israel’s conduct and unwilling to accept pro-Israel funding or endorse the Netanyahu government’s policies, consistent with the substance of the statement.

    Sources

  191. Claim 191
    Accurate95% confidence▶ 1:58:41
    “but aipac was terrified and so they spent a lot of money ironically in that race”

    AIPAC-linked spending targeted Tom Malinowski in the New Jersey primary.

    Multiple reports say the AIPAC-linked United Democracy Project spent more than $2 million attacking Malinowski in the New Jersey Democratic primary.

    Sources

  192. Claim 192
    Misleading96% confidence▶ 2:00:22
    “If Abdul wins tonight, if Abdul El-Sayed wins this race tonight, he would have defeated $32 million of spending by AIPAC.”

    If Abdul El-Sayed won the race, he would have defeated $32 million in AIPAC spending.

    The race did involve roughly $30 million in spending by AIPAC and affiliated groups, and more than $32 million in total outside spending was reported. Presenting the entire $32 million as AIPAC spending conflates the broader outside-spending total with AIPAC's own spending.

    Omits: The approximately $32 million figure referred to outside spending across multiple groups supporting Haley Stevens; reporting specifically attributed roughly $30 million to AIPAC and its affiliates, not necessarily the entire $32 million to AIPAC alone.

    Sources

  193. Claim 193
    Unverifiable76% confidence▶ 2:00:53
    “that no PAC has spent this much money in any race this year in the democratic cycle.”

    No PAC had spent as much money in any Democratic race that year.

    Available reporting establishes that AIPAC's spending was its largest investment ever in a single race, but it does not establish the broader universal comparison with every PAC in every Democratic race that year. The claim therefore cannot be confirmed as stated from the available evidence.

    Sources

  194. Claim 194
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 2:01:41
    “the deranged guy who stabbed an asian man and a jewish man you know 10 days ago in new york city was not put up to it because zaron mamdani called netanyahu a war criminal”

    A man stabbed an Asian man and a Jewish man in New York City about ten days earlier, and the attack was not arranged because Zohran Mamdani called Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal.

    News reports confirm that an Asian man and a Jewish man were stabbed in Manhattan and that Mamdani had called Netanyahu a war criminal. However, investigators had not publicly established the attacker's motive or whether anyone directed the attack, so the categorical claim that it was not arranged because of Mamdani's comments cannot be verified.

    Sources

    • 1NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani on accusations he's fueling antisemitism

      SupportsHe did so as Jewish New Yorkers rallied on Manhattan's Upper West Side against antisemitism and hate in the wake of the stabbing of a Jewish man and Asian man in the neighborhood last week.

    • 2After New York stabbing, Netanyahu blames Mamdani

      BackgroundInvestigators have not publicly linked the suspect’s motives to the mayor’s comments in a video address last week conceding he did not have the authority to arrest Netanyahu when he visits the city for the United Nations General Assembly in September, while also calling Netanyahu a war criminal and accusing him of orchestrating a genocide.

    • 3NYC community leaders denounce hate after Upper West Side stabbing

      BackgroundRaul Morales, 51, has been charged with attempted murder as a hate crime and assault as a hate crime for the attack on the Jewish man, and attempted murder and assault but not as a hate crime for the attack on the Asian man.

  195. Claim 195
    False97% confidence▶ 2:03:22
    “And it's AIPAC who chose to spend $32 million or wherever it lands. Against Ana Lilia Mejia and against Abdul El-Sayed.”

    AIPAC chose to spend approximately $32 million against Ana Lilia Mejia and Abdul El-Sayed.

    Reliable reporting supports roughly $30 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending in Michigan aimed at helping Haley Stevens defeat Abdul El-Sayed. In New Jersey, however, the reported $2.3 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending was against Tom Malinowski, while Mejia was the beneficiary of his defeat, so the claim incorrectly identifies Mejia as a target.

    Sources

  196. Claim 196
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 2:04:09
    “That is Mayor Abdullah Hamoud of Dearborn, Michigan.”

    Abdullah Hammoud is the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan.

    The City of Dearborn identifies Abdullah H. Hammoud as its mayor. The transcript misspells his surname as “Hamoud,” but the underlying identification is correct.

    Sources

  197. Claim 197
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:05:17
    “an organic group of people that came together to protest the Joe Biden administration's policy in support of Israel's genocide in Gaza,”

    The Uncommitted Movement was an organic group formed to protest the Biden administration's policy in support of what the speaker calls Israel's genocide in Gaza.

    The Uncommitted campaign did form as a protest against Biden's handling of the Gaza war, but whether Israel's conduct legally constitutes genocide—and whether U.S. policy supports that genocide—is disputed. The UN Commission of Inquiry has affirmed the genocide characterization, while Israel rejects it; the International Court of Justice has not issued a final merits judgment finding genocide.

    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.

    Sources

  198. Claim 198
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 2:06:02
    “and it started in dearborn spread across the country”

    The Uncommitted Movement began in Dearborn and spread across the United States.

    Contemporary reporting identifies Dearborn and Michigan as the center of the Uncommitted protest effort, and reports that the protest-vote movement subsequently spread to other states.

    Sources

  199. Claim 199
    Unverifiable94% confidence▶ 2:07:31
    “as we saw genocide be televised before our eyes i think you saw billions of individuals”

    Billions of people saw genocide in Gaza televised before their eyes.

    There is no reliable worldwide count establishing that billions of individuals watched televised coverage of Gaza. The claim is also not well-posed because "saw" could mean live television viewing, online exposure, or indirect awareness, and "genocide" remains a disputed legal characterization.

    Sources

  200. Claim 200
    Accurate100% confidence▶ 2:10:40
    “Mayor Abdullah Hamoud of Dearborn, Michigan.”

    Abdullah Hammoud is the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan.

    The City of Dearborn identifies Abdullah Hammoud as the city’s mayor and states that he was elected in November 2021. The transcript misspells his surname as “Hamoud,” but the underlying identification is correct.

    Sources

  201. Claim 201
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 2:11:16
    “Well, I'm just pulling it up to remind myself, this was the op-ed in February 2024 in the Wall Street Journal.”

    A Wall Street Journal op-ed published in February 2024 was titled “Welcome to Dearborn, America's jihad capital.”

    The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece with the headline “Welcome to Dearborn, America’s Jihad Capital” in its February 3–4, 2024 edition.

    Sources

  202. Claim 202
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 2:11:28
    “And Mayor Hamoud at the time had to get extra security and police out because they were worried about attacks.”

    Mayor Abdullah Hammoud increased police and security presence in Dearborn after the op-ed because of concerns about threats or attacks.

    Contemporary reporting states that Hammoud ordered increased law-enforcement presence at places of worship and major infrastructure points after the op-ed, citing an increase in Islamophobic and anti-Arab rhetoric and concern for community safety.

    Sources

  203. Claim 203
    Unverifiable92% confidence▶ 2:11:43
    “This idea, by the way, it's not a majority Muslim town.”

    Dearborn is not demonstrably a Muslim-majority city.

    The U.S. Census does not measure religious affiliation, so there is no authoritative population count establishing whether Dearborn is Muslim-majority. Census data does establish that the city has a majority Middle Eastern or North African population, but that is not equivalent to a Muslim-majority finding.

    Sources

  204. Claim 204
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 2:11:43
    “But it is somewhere where there is one of the biggest Arab American populations outside of the Middle East in the United States of America.”

    Dearborn has one of the largest Arab American populations in the United States outside the Middle East.

    Dearborn is widely documented as the largest or one of the largest Arab American population centers in the United States. The precise ranking depends on whether population size, percentage, city boundaries, or metropolitan area is used, but the substantive claim is supported.

    Sources

  205. Claim 205
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 2:11:57
    “because Michigan is a swing state with lots of Arab Americans and it could cost you.”

    Michigan is a swing state with a substantial Arab American electorate, making Gaza policy potentially electorally significant there.

    Michigan was a closely contested battleground in the 2024 presidential election, and the state contains one of the country’s largest and most concentrated Arab American communities. The specific causal prediction that Gaza policy “could cost” the campaign is a forecast, but the factual premises are supported.

    Sources

  206. Claim 206
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 2:12:11
    “they sent Bill Clinton to Michigan on the eve of the election to lecture people in Michigan about Jewish ties to the land of Israel, of Palestine. Bill Clinton started talking about King David and the Bible.”

    Bill Clinton appeared in Michigan for the Harris-Walz campaign shortly before the 2024 election and discussed Israel’s historical and biblical ties to the region, including King David.

    Clinton spoke at a Harris-Walz rally in Michigan on October 30, 2024, shortly before the November 5 election. Reporting on the remarks says he referred to Jewish historical ties, the Bible, and King David; “lecture” is characterization, but the underlying event and subject matter are documented.

    Sources

  207. Claim 207
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:12:32
    “what do I say to my constituents who have lost 100, not 20, not 50, 100 members of my family in Gaza.”

    Abdullah Hammoud said that more than 100 members of his family had been killed in Gaza and questioned how he could tell constituents to vote for Biden-Harris given U.S. support for Israel.

    The cited statement is attributed in contemporaneous interview coverage to Tariq Haddad, a Palestinian American whose family lost more than 100 relatives in Gaza. The transcript attributes it to Mayor Hammoud, so the family-loss claim is supported in substance but the speaker attribution appears mistaken.

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

    Sources

  208. Claim 208
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:13:25
    “don't hijack the democratic party with your socialist ideals start your own party i believe if not mistaken medi you can correct me didn't jamie harrison a prominent party official in fact make this exact argument yes john federman makes it every day now”

    John Fetterman regularly argues that socialist candidates should not run as Democrats and should instead form or use another party.

    Fetterman has publicly argued that Democratic Socialists should run under their own banner, but the transcript presents this as an everyday, routine argument and also attributes a similar statement to Jamie Harrison without identifying a reliable supporting record. The broad characterization is therefore overstated.

    Omits: The available evidence documents Fetterman criticizing socialist or progressive politics and questioning whether some candidates belong in the Democratic Party, but does not establish that he makes the specific “start your own party” argument every day.

    Sources

  209. Claim 209
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 2:15:17
    “You've seen the UK Labour Party lose voters to their left, to the Greens.”

    UK Labour has lost voters to parties on its left, including the Greens.

    Recent voter analyses report that Labour has lost substantial support to the Greens and other centre-left parties. The claim does not say Labour lost exclusively or primarily to the left, only that it lost voters in that direction.

    Sources

  210. Claim 210
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:15:23
    “But they obsess over winning back voters who have gone to the right when far fewer voters relatively have gone to the right than to the left.”

    Labour is focusing on winning back voters who moved right even though relatively fewer Labour voters moved right than left.

    Available studies support the comparison that Labour has recently lost more former voters to left-of-centre parties than to Reform, but they do not establish the broad behavioral claim that Labour officials 'obsess' over the right in all contexts. The framing also omits Labour's documented losses on both flanks.

    Omits: The claim omits that Labour has also lost voters to Reform and other right-wing parties, and that the relative size of these movements varies by election and dataset.

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

    Sources

  211. Claim 211
    Unverifiable72% confidence▶ 2:15:40
    “He was on a CNN documentary on Sunday where he said, I won't be in a party with Hassan Paikar,”

    James Carville said on a CNN documentary that he would not be in a party with Hasan Piker.

    CNN confirms that a documentary about James Carville was produced and aired, but the available reliable sources located do not contain the quoted statement or establish that he made it in that documentary. The claim therefore cannot be confirmed from the evidence found.

    Sources

  212. Claim 212
    Unverifiable85% confidence▶ 2:15:51
    “because Hassan Paikar speaks for a lot of young Democrats, whether you like Hassan Paikar or not.”

    Hasan Piker speaks for many young Democrats.

    “A lot of young Democrats” has no agreed quantitative definition, and the statement does not specify whether it refers to audience size, partisan identification, ideological agreement, or electoral influence. Evidence shows Piker has a large following and influence among young people, but not that he speaks for an undefined portion of young Democrats.

    Sources

  213. Claim 213
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:16:20
    “Also, I did an interview with Hassan for We're Not Kidding for the podcast just recently.”

    The speaker interviewed Hasan Piker for the We’re Not Kidding podcast recently.

    The transcript does not identify the interviewer by name in this sentence, and reliable search results did not establish the referenced episode or its date. The claim is specific but could not be independently confirmed from the sources found.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  214. Claim 214
    Unverifiable88% confidence▶ 2:16:38
    “His name is Bavic Latia, and he was also part of the Harris-Waltz 2024 presidential campaign.”

    Bavik Latia was a young, well-connected Democratic Party organizer and strategist who worked on the Harris-Walz 2024 presidential campaign.

    The transcript appears to contain uncertain name spellings (“Bavic/Bavik Latia”), and searches did not identify a reliable public record matching the person and the stated Harris-Walz campaign role. The claim cannot be confirmed as presented.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  215. Claim 215
    Unverifiable88% confidence▶ 2:17:24
    “I'm now looking at the results with 44% of votes in in Michigan. Abdullah Saeed is at 50%. Haley Stevens is at 46.3%.”

    At the time of the report, Abdul El-Sayed had 50% and Haley Stevens had 46.3% with 44% of Michigan votes counted.

    These were rapidly changing, time-specific unofficial results, and the available reliable reports confirm the race was close but do not preserve this exact 44%-counted snapshot or the stated percentages.

    Sources

  216. Claim 216
    Unverifiable84% confidence▶ 2:18:00
    “The New York Times has Abdul up seven points from their pre-election benchmarks.”

    The New York Times reported that Abdul El-Sayed was seven points above its pre-election benchmarks.

    The claim attributes a specific comparison to a New York Times analysis, but the underlying article or benchmark figures were not accessible in the available reliable sources, so the precise assertion cannot be confirmed.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  217. Claim 217
    Misleading90% confidence▶ 2:18:11
    “Michigan is famous for um doing something what my former boss and mentor ben weckler calls the the red mirage followed by the blue shift the early vote is always very very very conservative and then the blur votes come in right”

    Michigan’s 2020 vote count illustrated a red mirage followed by a blue shift, with Trump initially leading before later-counted votes moved toward Biden.

    Michigan did experience an early Trump lead that eroded as counting continued, a pattern widely described as a red mirage and blue shift. However, “always” makes the broader claim universal, which is not supported by the evidence.

    Omits: The statement says the early vote is “always” very conservative, omitting that the partisan composition and reporting order of early, mail, and Election Day votes vary by election and jurisdiction.

    Judged the claim including the intensifier “always”; the narrower claim that Michigan experienced an initial Republican lead followed by later Democratic gains is supported.

    Sources

  218. Claim 218
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:18:20
    “this is how trump was able to convince frankly too many people that the previous elections were stolen”

    Donald Trump used the changing vote count to promote claims that the 2020 election had been stolen.

    Trump repeatedly asserted that elections were stolen, but the claim that the red-mirage/blue-shift phenomenon caused him to convince 'too many people' is a broad causal and psychological assertion that cannot be established from the available evidence.

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

    Sources

    • 1Blue shift (politics)

      BackgroundWisconsin was also seeing a red mirage, but the Associated Press called the state for Biden at 4:40 a.m. after a ballot dump of 69,000 absentee ballots turned Trump's 31,000-vote lead into a narrow lead for Biden.

  219. Claim 219
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:18:39
    “in Milwaukee County, you have to wait until three, four in the morning for the votes to come in”

    Milwaukee County can report election results late at night or in the early morning because absentee ballots are processed centrally and separately from polling-place results.

    The statement is a recurring claim about the timing of Milwaukee County vote reporting, but the available sources establish delayed reporting in Wisconsin generally rather than verifying that Milwaukee County typically requires waiting until 3 or 4 a.m.

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

    Sources

    • 1Blue shift (politics)

      BackgroundWisconsin was also seeing a red mirage, but the Associated Press called the state for Biden at 4:40 a.m. after a ballot dump of 69,000 absentee ballots turned Trump's 31,000-vote lead into a narrow lead for Biden.

  220. Claim 220
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 2:19:06
    “Lawrence is, you know, founder of the Sunrise Movement”

    William Lawrence was a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement.

    Sunrise Movement identifies William Lawrence as an original cofounder, and AP also describes him as having cofounded the organization.

    Sources

  221. Claim 221
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 2:19:15
    “He is leading former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bridget Brink, in the Democratic primary for Michigan's 7th Congressional District”

    William Lawrence was leading former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink in Michigan’s 7th District Democratic primary and ultimately defeated her and Matt Maasdam.

    Contemporaneous reporting confirms that Lawrence defeated Bridget Brink and Matt Maasdam in the Democratic primary, and identifies Brink as a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

    Sources

  222. Claim 222
    Unverifiable78% confidence▶ 2:19:52
    “his ground game, they knocked over 100,000 doors in East Lansing”

    William Lawrence’s campaign knocked on more than 100,000 doors in East Lansing.

    The available reliable reporting confirms Lawrence’s campaign and organizing background but does not independently verify the specific claim that more than 100,000 doors were knocked in East Lansing.

    Sources

  223. Claim 223
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 2:20:21
    “Michigan primary tonight, that is a bigger deal than Zoran Mamdani winning the New York”

    Michigan's primary election is being held tonight.

    The transcript concerns Michigan's August 4, 2026 primary, which was held that night. Contemporary reporting identifies the Michigan Democratic Senate primary as taking place on August 4, 2026.

    Sources

  224. Claim 224
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:20:34
    “maybe sagnaw where i grew up is the quintessential swing county it went bush bush Bush, Obama, Romney, Trump, and then Biden”

    Saginaw County voted for Bush, Bush, Obama, Romney, Trump, and Biden in successive presidential elections.

    Saginaw County's presidential winners were George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, Barack Obama in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012, Donald Trump in 2016, and Joe Biden in 2020. The sequence stated is accurate, although the characterization 'quintessential swing county' is evaluative and is not independently assessed here.

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

    Sources

  225. Claim 225
    Accurate100% confidence▶ 2:21:48
    “Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in Michigan.”

    Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in Michigan in 2024.

    Official 2024 election records show Trump won Michigan's 15 electoral votes, while Harris received none from the state.

    Sources

  226. Claim 226
    Misleading87% confidence▶ 2:22:02
    “Mike Rogers is a key architect of the opioid epidemic in Michigan.”

    Mike Rogers was a key architect of Michigan's opioid epidemic.

    Reporting supports criticism of Rogers's advocacy for increased access to pain care and ties him financially to drug companies involved in opioid settlements. It does not support the stronger, singular causal characterization that he was a 'key architect' of Michigan's opioid epidemic.

    Omits: The claim omits that the available evidence describes Rogers as advocating for increased access to pain treatment and receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies, but does not establish that he was a principal architect of Michigan's opioid epidemic or quantify his causal responsibility relative to manufacturers, distributors, prescribers, and other actors.

    Sources

  227. Claim 227
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 2:23:45
    “frankly went into the realm of Islamophobia in their response to Abdul and Hassan doing events on college campuses”

    Mallory McMorrow compared Hasan Piker, who appeared at events with Abdul El-Sayed, to Nick Fuentes.

    Reporting on the Michigan campaign documented McMorrow criticizing El-Sayed's campaign appearances with Hasan Piker and comparing Piker to white supremacist Nick Fuentes. The characterization of that response as Islamophobic is an evaluative judgment, but the underlying comparison is documented.

    Sources

  228. Claim 228
    Accurate50% confidence▶ 2:24:40
    “allow a Palestinian speaker on stage at the DNC, talk about the possibility of some kind of arms restrictions on sales.”

    The Uncommitted movement sought a Palestinian speaker at the Democratic National Convention and called for restrictions or an embargo on arms sales to Israel.

    Contemporary reporting documented that Uncommitted delegates requested a Palestinian American speaker on the DNC main stage and advocated an arms embargo or restrictions on arms transfers to Israel.

    Sources

  229. Claim 229
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:25:31
    “it was the unwillingness to stare at genocide in its eye and call it what it was”

    A United Nations commission concluded that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.

    The claim reflects a conclusion reached by a UN Commission of Inquiry, but genocide remains disputed institutionally: the commission affirmed it, while Israel and the United States reject the characterization and the ICJ has not yet issued a final merits ruling.

    The checker returned Contested but could not quote a source on each side of the dispute, so this is recorded as unverifiable.

    Sources

  230. Claim 230
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:25:42
    “the scale of human suffering that the fascist israeli government put upon the people of gaza with us not just you know funding but military support diplomatic cover”

    The United States provided Israel with funding, military support, and diplomatic cover during the Gaza war.

    The existence of extensive civilian suffering and U.S. support is well documented, but the speaker's wording embeds a broader judgment about the Israeli government's responsibility and characterizes the government as fascist. Named institutions and governments have reached opposing conclusions on the related genocide characterization, so this claim is contested rather than unverifiable.

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

    Sources

  231. Claim 231
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:27:30
    “It's 49% to 46%.”

    The Michigan Democratic Senate primary was at approximately 49% to 46% when the exchange occurred.

    The claim describes a specific election-night snapshot, but the available official and news sources reviewed do not preserve results showing exactly 49% to 46% with half of the vote tallied. Later reporting documented a different count level and margin, which does not independently verify this earlier snapshot.

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

    Sources

  232. Claim 232
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:27:50
    “but that's still like 20 000 votes almost 30 000 between them”

    The difference between El-Sayed and Stevens was approximately 20,000 to 30,000 votes.

    This was an election-night estimate tied to a particular, unspecified point in the count. The sources reviewed confirm a narrow race but do not establish that the gap at the moment described was between 20,000 and 30,000 votes.

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

    Sources

  233. Claim 233
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:27:59
    “this is showing that progressive populism and anti-genocide agendas are the ones that are winning”

    Progressive candidates won or were leading in several Michigan Democratic primaries.

    Reporting supports strong progressive performance: Lawrence had won and El-Sayed and McKinney were performing well. But the broader claim that the results demonstrated that progressive populism and anti-genocide agendas were 'the ones that are winning' overstates what the results established and implies a causal conclusion not shown by the reporting.

    Omits: The statement omits that only William Lawrence's victory had been called at the time, while the El-Sayed and Donavan McKinney races were still unresolved; it also treats an election result as proof that particular agendas caused the victories.

    Sources

  234. Claim 234
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 2:28:38
    “APAC pulled new tricks in my race doing positive ads for a different progressive candidate”

    AIPAC-linked groups ran positive advertising for another progressive candidate in the Illinois primary.

    The transcript appears to say AIPAC. Reporting found that the AIPAC-linked Chicago Progressive Partnership ran ads supporting progressive candidate Bushra Amiwala while also targeting Kat Abughazaleh, a tactic described as an effort to split the progressive vote.

    Sources

  235. Claim 235
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:29:20
    “you're a former republican yes”

    Kat Abughazaleh was formerly a Republican.

    Reporting confirms that AIPAC-linked advertising highlighted Abughazaleh's past Republican views as a teenager. It does not establish the broader characterization that she was formally or politically 'a former Republican,' so the wording creates a potentially misleading impression.

    Omits: The statement leaves out that the documented Republican-related activity consisted of pro-Republican views expressed in articles in her high-school newspaper as a teenager, rather than establishing that she was a registered Republican or held Republican office.

    Sources

  236. Claim 236
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:33:02
    “Yeah, I'm a free woman. ICE hit me and a bunch of other people with a car and then indicted us saying we were trying to obstruct or injure the ICE agent, threatened to put us in prison for almost 10 years, and then it turns out they had to commit prosecutorial misconduct to get our indictment.”

    The speaker and other protesters were struck by an ICE vehicle and indicted for allegedly obstructing or injuring an ICE agent, with a potential prison sentence of nearly 10 years.

    Reliable case summaries confirm that six protesters were indicted after a confrontation involving an ICE vehicle and that the charges included federal assault/impeding and conspiracy provisions. However, the wording presents the vehicle encounter as ICE hitting the protesters and compresses the legal allegations into a more specific characterization that the cited records do not establish.

    Omits: The available case descriptions say an SUV entered the facility driveway and protesters allegedly blocked or damaged the vehicle; they do not establish that ICE intentionally hit the protesters. The documented federal charges were under 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 372, concerning assaulting/impeding federal officers and conspiracy, rather than simply an offense described as injuring an ICE agent.

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

    Sources

  237. Claim 237
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 2:33:17
    “So they dropped the charges three days before trial after we forced them to show the transcripts. And now we're finally under the Hyde Amendment to get our fees back and also learn what the hell happened.”

    The charges were dismissed three days before trial after the defendants forced prosecutors to disclose transcripts, and prosecutorial misconduct was involved in obtaining the indictment.

    The case record confirms that the remaining charges were dismissed with prejudice after serious misconduct before the grand jury and the court was revealed through transcript-related proceedings. Contemporary reporting also confirms that the defendants filed claims under the Hyde Amendment to seek reimbursement of legal fees; the timing was days before the scheduled trial.

    Sources

  238. Claim 238
    False98% confidence▶ 2:36:12
    “My partner, Ben, who runs The Onion, was acquiring Infowars while I was running for Congress and also under federal indictment.”

    Ben Collins runs The Onion’s parent company, which acquired Infowars while Kat Abughazaleh was running for Congress and before she was federally indicted.

    Ben Collins was CEO of The Onion’s parent company and led its 2024 bid for Infowars. However, the federal indictment was filed nearly a year later, in October 2025, making the claim that the acquisition occurred while she was under indictment false.

    Sources

  239. Claim 239
    Accurate96% confidence▶ 2:36:49
    “And so our campaign office doubled as a mutual aid hub. people could come in anytime we were open and get what they needed from food to baby formula to diapers to books”

    Abughazaleh’s campaign office operated as a mutual-aid hub where people could obtain necessities such as food, baby formula, diapers, and books.

    Independent reporting describes Abughazaleh’s headquarters as a mutual-aid hub providing essential items, explicitly including baby formula and other supplies. The claim is supported as stated.

    Sources

  240. Claim 240
    Unverifiable90% confidence▶ 2:37:13
    “i like to say that we were the first campaign ever to have two separate mosh pits”

    Abughazaleh’s campaign was the first campaign ever to have two separate mosh pits.

    The statement makes a universal historical priority claim, but no reliable record or agreed dataset establishes whether any earlier political campaign had two separate mosh pits. It therefore cannot be confirmed or refuted.

    The intensifier “first campaign ever” requires a comprehensive historical comparison of all campaigns and has not been established by the available evidence.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  241. Claim 241
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:37:31
    “so francesca hong for instance has created her campaign hq to mirror ours”

    Francesca Hong created her campaign headquarters to mirror Abughazaleh’s campaign headquarters.

    The claim concerns a specific campaign practice, but the available reliable sources did not provide independent confirmation that Hong explicitly modeled her headquarters on Abughazaleh’s.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  242. Claim 242
    Accurate90% confidence▶ 2:38:14
    “AIPAC played real dirty, where they actually tried to boost some of the leftist fringe candidates in order to undermine people like Junaid Ahmed, who she mentioned in one race”

    AIPAC-linked groups used advertising to boost some left-wing candidates in order to undermine other progressive candidates in Illinois races.

    Reporting describes AIPAC-linked groups using advertisements that promoted or supported some candidates while attempting to weaken progressive rivals, including Junaid Ahmed. The speaker’s characterization is supported by the documented campaign strategy.

    Sources

  243. Claim 243
    Misleading50% confidence▶ 2:38:31
    “although Daniel Biss did win that race that Kat Abu Ghazali was in”

    Daniel Biss won the congressional primary race that included Kat Abughazaleh.

    Daniel Biss did win the primary, and reporting identifies him as backed by J Street. However, the characterization “very anti-AIPAC” is not supported by the cited evidence; reporting instead describes him as critical of some Israeli policies and notes that AIPAC-affiliated groups targeted him.

    Omits: The available reporting confirms that Biss won and that J Street backed him, but it describes him as critical of some Israeli policies rather than establishing that he was “very anti-AIPAC.”

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

    Sources

  244. Claim 244
    Unverifiable93% confidence▶ 2:38:51
    “Right now we have Abdul Sayed with 55% of the vote in, majority of the vote in. He's up 49.5%. Haley Stevens on 46.8%.”

    At that point in the count, Abdul El-Sayed had 49.5% and Haley Stevens had 46.8%, with roughly 55% of the vote counted.

    The cited election coverage confirms that results were still being counted and the race was close, but the available contemporaneous reports do not preserve or verify this exact intermediate tally of 49.5% to 46.8% with 55% counted.

    Sources

  245. Claim 245
    Misleading86% confidence▶ 2:39:09
    “she has a nine-to-one spending advantage over Abdul El-Sayed.”

    Haley Stevens had a nine-to-one spending advantage over Abdul El-Sayed.

    Available reporting describes Stevens as having roughly a 12-to-1 outside-spending advantage, while other reporting gives different absolute totals for campaign and outside spending. Presenting a nine-to-one figure without defining the spending category creates a misleading impression of precision.

    Omits: The statement omits that reported outside-spending ratios were substantially larger—about 12-to-1—and that spending figures differ depending on whether campaign spending or outside spending is counted.

    Sources

  246. Claim 246
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:39:30
    “Abdul El-Sayed is still up. Half the votes have been towered, but of course another half hasn't been towered.”

    Abdul El-Sayed had been leading by about half the vote counted, while the other half remained uncounted.

    The transcript’s “half” characterization is an approximate snapshot, but the available reporting only confirms that votes were still being counted and later reported a different count level. No reliable source located verifies that exactly half had been tallied at this moment.

    Sources

  247. Claim 247
    Unverifiable84% confidence▶ 2:40:37
    “there was a stream of polls in the past week and a half that showed plus 10 plus 12 plus 15 for al-sayed”

    Polling during the previous week and a half showed El-Sayed ahead by 10, 12, and 15 percentage points.

    The available reporting confirms that El-Sayed led in some polling before the primary, but the sources located do not identify a sequence of polls showing precisely +10, +12, and +15 in the stated period. The specific polling assertion therefore cannot be verified from reliable sources found.

    Sources

  248. Claim 248
    Unverifiable88% confidence▶ 2:41:15
    “He was quick to reach out to Mallory McMorrow when she pulled out. He called her, he called for her supporters. Haley Stevens did not call Mallory McMorrow until the media basically encouraged her to do so.”

    Abdul El-Sayed quickly contacted Mallory McMorrow after she withdrew and called for her supporters, while Haley Stevens did not contact McMorrow until urged by the media.

    Reporting confirms that El-Sayed publicly urged McMorrow’s supporters to join his movement and that Stevens issued a respectful statement after McMorrow suspended her campaign. The sources located do not verify the alleged private phone call or the claim that media pressure was required before Stevens contacted her.

    Sources

  249. Claim 249
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 2:41:33
    “she referred to him as someone who blamed his problems on Jewish Americans.”

    Haley Stevens said that Abdul El-Sayed blamed his problems on Jewish Americans.

    Reliable reporting confirms that Stevens accused El-Sayed of rhetoric she viewed as endangering or threatening Jews, but the sources located do not verify this exact characterization or wording. The claim may summarize a campaign accusation, but it cannot be judged as stated from the evidence found.

    Sources

  250. Claim 250
    Accurate97% confidence▶ 2:45:20
    “But if you look at Donovan McKinney, he's talked about affordability crisis. He's talked about bringing down the cost of car insurance, something very basic when it comes to the affordability crisis.”

    Donavan McKinney has discussed affordability, including lowering car-insurance costs, as campaign issues.

    McKinney’s campaign materials and a candidate interview explicitly identify affordability, health care, and auto-insurance costs as issues he discusses. The transcript accurately characterizes those campaign themes.

    Sources