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

We May Need ‘Massive Boycotts’ to Stop Trump, Says Democracy Expert

70 claims checked · Published August 2026 · Checked August 2026

Watch on YouTube Jump to claims ↓
The map

Who said what, and about what

Hover a row to trace its chain · click one to pin its detail

The receipts

Every claim, checked

  1. Claim 1
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 0:29
    “I'm also joined by Skye Perryman, who is a lawyer and president and CEO of Democracy Forward,”

    Skye Perryman is a lawyer and the president and CEO of Democracy Forward.

    Democracy Forward identifies Skye Perryman as its President and CEO, and official Democracy Forward materials identify her as a lawyer.

    Sources

    • 1Skye Perryman - Democracy Forward

      SupportsPerryman is the President and CEO of Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan, national legal organization that promotes democracy and progress through litigation, regulatory engagement, communications, policy education, and research.

    • 2Testimony of Skye L. Perryman, Democracy Forward

      SupportsMy name is Skye Perryman.I am a lawyer and the President and CEO of DemocracyForward Foundation, which is a non-partisan, national legal organization that promotes

  2. Claim 2
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate96% confidence▶ 0:40
    “We're a nonpartisan national legal organization that wants to make sure that people in this time have the ability to use their voices, including through the courts.”

    Democracy Forward is a nonpartisan national legal organization that helps people use legal tools, including the courts, to advance their interests.

    Democracy Forward describes itself as a national legal organization and says it provides legal representation and expert counsel to people and communities, including through litigation.

    Sources

    • 1About Us - Democracy Forward

      SupportsDemocracy Forward is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement.

    • 2Legal Actions - Democracy Forward

      SupportsWe provide legal representation and expert counsel to people and communities that make up our country — free of charge.

  3. Claim 3
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 0:50
    “We have filed hundreds of cases against the Trump Vance administration.”

    Democracy Forward has filed hundreds of legal actions against the Trump-Vance administration.

    Democracy Forward reports filing more than 150 lawsuits against the executive branch in 2025, but describes its broader activity as hundreds of legal actions. Calling those actions 'hundreds of cases' gives the impression that hundreds of separate lawsuits were filed by the organization.

    Omits: Democracy Forward's 2025 impact report says it filed more than 150 lawsuits against the executive branch, while separately describing hundreds of broader legal actions; the statement omits that distinction.

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

    Sources

    • 12025 Impact Report - Democracy Forward

      BackgroundThis year, we have filed more than 150 lawsuits against the executive branch, launched more than 250 investigations, and submitted more than 1,500 detailed records demands across federal agencies.

    • 22025 Impact Report - Democracy Forward

      BackgroundWe have been able to mount scaled responses to the Trump-Vance administration’s federal attacks — filing hundreds of legal actions and winning — while also continuing our mission-critical work in states and communities across the nation.

  4. Claim 4
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedUnverifiable78% confidence▶ 1:22
    “here are 19 ways Trump and Republicans are plotting to rig and steal midterm elections.”

    A Zeteo article was headlined “19 ways Trump and Republicans are plotting to rig and steal midterm elections.”

    The exact article headline and its claimed count of 19 could not be independently confirmed from the publicly accessible Zeteo pages located in the search. A related Zeteo article discusses five areas in which Republican officials and lawmakers were attempting to influence or disrupt the 2026 elections, but it does not establish this exact headline.

    Sources

    • 1This Is How Trump Is Laying the Groundwork to Steal the 2026 Elections

      BackgroundRepublican election officials and lawmakers in a handful of states are working in five key areas to upend next year’s elections – either attempting to rig them to favor the GOP or setting up another chaotic post-election period filled with demands for recounts and investigations into specious fraud claims.

  5. Claim 5
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 1:57
    “the trump vance administration the republican party and all of their anti-democratic allies across the country are plotting to rig and steal elections not just this year but going forward”

    The Trump-Vance administration, the Republican Party, and allied actors across the country are seeking to rig or undermine elections beyond the current year.

    Zeteo reports that the Trump administration’s election-denial allies were working to undermine the 2026 elections and that Republican officials and lawmakers in a handful of states were attempting to rig them or create post-election challenges. The transcript broadens that evidence into a claim about all allied actors across the country and about elections generally going forward.

    Omits: The available evidence documents actions by Republican officials and election-denial allies in specific states and in a handful of areas; it does not establish that every alleged ally nationwide is plotting to rig or steal elections.

    The intensifier “all of their anti-democratic allies across the country” was judged as stated. The evidence supports documented efforts by some Republican officials and allies, not the universal claim about all such allies.

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

    Sources

  6. Claim 6
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 3:26
    “It's been around, I think, since 2016, i.e. the entire Trump, uh, political life.”

    The organization Skye Perryman runs has existed since 2016.

    The organization is Democracy Forward, which identifies its origins as the wake of the 2016 election but states that it was founded in 2017. Saying it has been around since 2016 blurs the distinction between planning/origins and formal founding.

    Omits: Democracy Forward was formally founded in 2017, although its organizers began building it in the wake of the 2016 election.

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

    Sources

  7. Claim 7
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 4:45
    “That's the heart of my upcoming book, Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, is all about”

    Skye Perryman has an upcoming book titled Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times.

    The publisher lists Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times as a book by Skye Perryman and gives its availability date as August 25, 2026, which was still in the future on the transcript’s apparent recording date.

    Sources

  8. Claim 8
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedUnverifiable97% confidence▶ 8:29
    “It's already happened in multiple court cases.”

    The previously discussed development has already occurred in multiple court cases.

    The pronoun "it" has no sufficiently defined referent in the quoted passage: it could refer to democratic backsliding, election interference, or another alleged development. Because the claim does not identify what happened or which cases are meant, it cannot be reliably confirmed or refuted as stated.

    Sources

  9. Claim 9
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 8:35
    “Donald Trump said that the only thing he regrets is leaving the White House in 2020.”

    Donald Trump said that his only regret was leaving the White House in 2020.

    Trump did publicly say he "shouldn't have left" the White House after his 2020 loss. However, the available account does not show him saying that leaving was literally the only thing he regretted, so the transcript overstates the attribution.

    Omits: The documented statement was that Trump said he "shouldn't have left" the White House after losing the 2020 election; reporting does not establish that he called it his only regret.

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

    Sources

  10. Claim 10
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedFalse91% confidence▶ 8:35
    “Arguably, the only things that stopped him then were Mike Pence, the military, the courts.”

    The only things that stopped Donald Trump in 2020 were Mike Pence, the military, and the courts.

    The claim's exhaustive wording is false. Congress completed the electoral-vote count despite the attack and objections, and the January 6 investigation also documented pressure directed at state officials, legislatures, election officials, and the Justice Department—not just Pence, the military, and the courts.

    The intensifier "only" is judged literally: the claim asserts that no other actors or institutions stopped Trump.

    Sources

  11. Claim 11
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 8:41
    “Trump now has Vance instead of Pence.”

    Donald Trump currently has JD Vance as vice president instead of Mike Pence.

    JD Vance is the current vice president serving in Donald Trump's administration, replacing Mike Pence, who was vice president during Trump's first term.

    Sources

  12. Claim 12
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 8:41
    “He controls the courts.”

    Donald Trump controls the courts.

    “Controls the courts” has no agreed operational definition: it could mean appointing many judges, influencing judicial outcomes, or being able to direct court decisions. The available evidence shows both substantial influence through appointments and repeated court rulings blocking or limiting Trump administration actions, so the claim cannot be judged as stated.

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

    Sources

  13. Claim 13
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 9:09
    “The Supreme Court is the same today as it was on January 6th, 2021.”

    The Supreme Court has the same membership on August 11, 2026, as it did on January 6, 2021.

    The Court had Stephen Breyer on January 6, 2021, while the current Court includes Ketanji Brown Jackson and lists Breyer as retired. Therefore, its membership is not the same.

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

    Sources

  14. Claim 14
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate94% confidence▶ 9:25
    “They're far better because because you had the Joe Biden, the four years of Joe Biden, where the Senate did confirm over 200 professionally diverse, demographically diverse judges that are committed to the Constitution.”

    During the Biden administration, the Senate confirmed more than 200 judges who were professionally and demographically diverse and were characterized as committed to constitutional principles.

    The Senate confirmed 235 Article III judges during the Biden administration, including judges described by Senate Judiciary officials as professionally and demographically diverse and committed to the rule of law. The nominees’ commitment to the Constitution is partly a characterization, but the underlying count and diversity claims are supported.

    Sources

  15. Claim 15
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading96% confidence▶ 10:12
    “What we're seeing is actually even this Supreme Court is telling the president, look, sorry, the Constitution just doesn't provide a role for you in elections.”

    The Constitution provides no role whatsoever for the president in elections.

    The Supreme Court has said the president plays no direct role in the process of counting and certifying electoral votes, which is the narrow point relevant to January 6. But the broader statement that the Constitution provides no role for the president in elections is misleading because Article II duties include enforcing federal election laws, and presidential actions can affect election legislation and administration.

    Omits: The claim omits the crucial distinction between having no direct role in the electoral-vote certification process and having no constitutional or statutory role in elections at all; the Supreme Court recognized that the president must enforce federal election laws and may communicate about election administration.

    Sources

  16. Claim 16
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate50% confidence▶ 10:22
    “And that's what happened in the last time the president tried to not leave office.”

    A president previously tried not to leave office after losing an election.

    The statement refers to Donald Trump’s efforts after the 2020 election to overturn the result and remain in power beyond the end of his elected term. The House January 6 Committee and the federal indictment described those efforts in substantially those terms.

    Sources

  17. Claim 17
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate50% confidence▶ 11:21
    “Richard Blumenthal's done similar things and they just can't do it. They tie themselves up in pretzels.”

    Richard Blumenthal recently asked Trump judicial nominees who won the 2020 election, and the nominees repeatedly declined to answer directly.

    At a March 2026 Senate Judiciary hearing, Blumenthal asked four Trump judicial nominees who won the 2020 election. The nominees repeatedly deflected the question instead of directly answering that Joe Biden won.

    Sources

  18. Claim 18
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 11:25
    “We even saw it with the Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, at his hearing.”

    Jay Clayton declined to say directly that Joe Biden won the 2020 election during his confirmation hearing.

    At his July 15, 2026 confirmation hearing, Jay Clayton repeatedly said the election was “certified” for Biden but declined to say outright that Biden won.

    Sources

  19. Claim 19
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedAccurate87% confidence▶ 12:28
    “he is openly telling them and having them work a ton behind the scenes to uh collect materials and different documents different top secret and classified documentation”

    Trump directed the ODNI, FBI, CIA and other agencies to investigate alleged hidden intelligence about the 2020 election, while a White House task force reviewed and released related documents.

    The White House said Trump directed the DNI, DOJ, FBI and CIA to investigate allegedly withheld election intelligence, and Reuters reported that a White House task force asked intelligence agencies for relevant documents. The evidence supports the underlying claim that the administration enlisted intelligence agencies and reviewed classified material, though the transcript adds an unsupported characterization about the purpose being propaganda.

    Sources

  20. Claim 20
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedFalse99% confidence▶ 12:46
    “the 2020 election was stolen from me by nefarious actors.”

    The 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump by actors who changed the result.

    The election was certified for Joe Biden, and DOJ and DHS found no evidence that a foreign government-affiliated actor manipulated the results or compromised the integrity of the election. The claim that the election was stolen therefore conflicts with the official investigations and adjudicated record.

    Sources

  21. Claim 21
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate95% confidence▶ 13:04
    “the CIA, which has an atrocious track record of rigging and up-turning democracies abroad over recent decades”

    The CIA has repeatedly helped overthrow or destabilize foreign governments, including in Guatemala and Chile, over the past several decades.

    Declassified U.S. government records document CIA covert action connected to the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala’s government and political intervention in Chile beginning in 1970. Those documented cases support the substantive assertion that the CIA has a historical record of intervening against foreign governments, although “atrocious” is evaluative.

    Sources

  22. Claim 22
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 13:42
    “Making false claims about China interfering in the election when the documents they released that night didn't show that”

    The documents released in connection with Trump’s China-election claims did not establish that China changed the outcome of the 2020 election.

    The documents did not establish that China altered votes or changed the 2020 election outcome, so the speaker is right about the lack of proof for outcome-changing interference. But the wording broadly says the documents did not show Chinese interference at all, omitting evidence of voter-data acquisition and contemplated influence efforts.

    Omits: The released materials did show that Chinese actors obtained or analyzed U.S. voter-registration data and considered influence activities, even though the intelligence community concluded that China did not deploy interference intended to change the election outcome.

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

    Sources

  23. Claim 23
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedMisleading92% confidence▶ 14:10
    “one study found Donald Trump ignores one in three court decisions that go against him.”

    A study found that Donald Trump ignores one out of every three court decisions against him.

    A Washington Post analysis reported that Trump officials were accused of flouting court orders in roughly one-third of lawsuits in which judges issued substantive rulings. That is materially narrower than saying a study found Trump personally ignores one in three adverse court decisions.

    Omits: The Washington Post analysis concerned allegations of noncompliance in about one-third of more than 160 lawsuits with substantive rulings against the administration, not a study establishing that Trump personally ignored one-third of all adverse court decisions.

    Sources

  24. Claim 24
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate94% confidence▶ 14:10
    “This administration has just defied court orders.”

    The Trump administration has defied court orders.

    Contemporary reporting documented multiple allegations and instances of Trump administration officials failing to comply with federal court orders, including an order concerning deportations. The broad claim that the administration has defied court orders is supported.

    Sources

  25. Claim 25
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedUnverifiable78% confidence▶ 14:10
    “J.D. Vance is on record from a Vanity Fair interview from, I think, about four or five years ago where he says, you know, I would advise Donald Trump, if he's president again, to just say to the Supreme Court, you and whose army?”

    J.D. Vance said in a Vanity Fair interview that he would advise a future President Trump to challenge the Supreme Court by asking, “you and whose army?”

    The cited Vanity Fair interview and the quoted wording could not be located in reliable searchable records. The attribution may exist in an inaccessible or differently titled interview, but the available evidence does not confirm it.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  26. Claim 26
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate98% confidence▶ 14:52
    “the president's power is always limited by Congress and also by the courts.”

    The constitutional system limits presidential power through Congress and the federal courts.

    The Constitution divides federal power among Congress, the President and the federal courts, and the National Archives describes checks and balances as preventing any one branch from becoming dominant. The statement is a general summary of the constitutional structure, though the specific mechanisms and limits vary by issue.

    Sources

    • 1The Constitution: What Does it Say?

      SupportsA system of checks and balances prevents any one of these separate powers from becoming dominant.

    • 2Separation of Powers Under the Constitution

      Supportsthe Nation’s Founding document divides governmental power among three branches by vesting the Legislative Power of the Federal Government in Congress; the Executive Power in the President; and the Judicial Power in the Supreme Court and any lower courts created by Congress.

  27. Claim 27
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate100% confidence▶ 15:39
    “And he is, in fact, the commander in chief.”

    The president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military.

    Article II of the Constitution expressly makes the president commander in chief of the Army and Navy and of the state militias when called into federal service.

    Sources

    • 1U.S. Constitution - Article II

      SupportsThe President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

  28. Claim 28
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedFalse96% confidence▶ 15:50
    “They cannot show up at polling places.”

    Military troops cannot be stationed at polling places.

    Federal law generally prohibits military or federal officials from stationing troops at polling places, but it includes an explicit exception when necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States. The unqualified statement is therefore false.

    Sources

  29. Claim 29
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 16:02
    “The Supreme Court continued to maintain the lower court's order that blocked it because there was no basis for it.”

    The Supreme Court left in place the lower-court order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Illinois because the government had not identified sufficient legal authority.

    The Court did leave the lower-court block in place, and it found that the administration had not shown the required statutory authority at that stage. But describing this as a definitive Supreme Court finding that there was no basis overstates the procedural ruling.

    Omits: The Supreme Court's December 23, 2025 decision was an interlocutory ruling that said the administration had not met its burden at that stage to show that Title 10 authorized the deployment; it was not a final merits ruling that the deployment categorically had no legal basis.

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

    Sources

  30. Claim 30
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable90% confidence▶ 16:55
    “And they have been losing overwhelmingly in the courts, including before Trump appointed judges.”

    The Trump administration has been losing overwhelmingly in court, including before judges appointed by Trump.

    The claim does not define the time period, the set of cases, the denominator, or what qualifies as "overwhelmingly." Available reporting documents many losses and alleged violations, but also numerous higher-court rulings favoring the administration, so the assertion cannot be given a determinate truth value as stated.

    The intensifier "overwhelmingly" is judged as stated; no objective threshold, time period, case universe, or definition of "losing" is supplied.

    Sources

  31. Claim 31
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading94% confidence▶ 17:15
    “to defy, you know, one in three orders. He has not been successful at doing that because”

    The Trump administration attempted to defy one in three court orders and was not successful in doing so.

    The Washington Post found accusations of defiance or frustration in 57 of 165 lawsuits with adverse substantive rulings, approximately 35 percent, but not one-third of all orders. It also documented instances in which officials delayed or failed to comply for weeks or months, so saying the attempts were simply unsuccessful creates a misleading impression.

    Omits: The claim omits that the reported one-third figure concerned 57 of 165 lawsuits in which courts ruled against the administration, not literally one-third of all court orders, and that judges documented temporary or continuing noncompliance, including deportations carried out despite court orders.

    Sources

  32. Claim 32
    Unverifiable94% confidence▶ 18:30
    “The number one way people, we know this, the number one way people give up their power is to believe that they don't have any.”

    Believing that one has no power is the number-one way people give up their power.

    The claim asserts a ranking across all ways people give up power, but it gives no defined population, measurement method, or comparative evidence. Research supports that authoritarian systems use propaganda and information manipulation, but it does not establish this specific behavior as the most common way people surrender power.

    The intensifier "number one" is judged as stated; removing it would turn the claim into a general psychological assertion rather than an empirically ranked one.

    Sources

    • 1Informational Autocrats

      BackgroundInstead of terrorizing citizens into submission, "informational autocrats" artificially boost their popularity by convincing the public they are competent.

  33. Claim 33
    Accurate78% confidence▶ 18:39
    “I believe Alice Walker said that.”

    The most common way people give up their power is attributed to Alice Walker.

    The preceding wording is a paraphrase of a quotation widely attributed to Alice Walker. A quotation reference identifies the wording as attributed to Walker and cites it as appearing in a 2004 quotation book.

    Sources

  34. Claim 34
    Unverifiable50% confidence▶ 18:40
    “And the number one tool that autocratic actors use is not actually the CIA or some intelligence agency. It's not gerrymandering or voter suppression. It's not the military. It's convincing people that there is, in fact, nothing that they can do in this moment.”

    Convincing people that they cannot do anything is the number-one tool used by autocratic actors.

    Studies document propaganda, censorship, and information manipulation as tools used by autocratic regimes, but they do not establish that convincing people of their powerlessness is the single most-used tool, nor provide an agreed ranking against repression, censorship, or coercion.

    The intensifier "number one" is judged as stated; the weaker claim that autocrats use information manipulation to influence citizens is supported by political-science research.

    Sources

  35. Claim 35
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 19:00
    “The polling backs me up on that, by the way.”

    Polling supports the assertion that American democracy is in crisis.

    The speaker does not identify which poll, its dates, its sample, or what question supposedly supports the claim. Without those details, the asserted polling evidence cannot be checked against a specific source.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  36. Claim 36
    Accurate98% confidence▶ 20:29
    “when he was sitting with Zelensky in the Oval Office and Zelensky said, well, we can't have elections in Ukraine while the war is going on. And Trump immediately jumps and says, oh, you're saying you don't have to have elections if you're in the middle of a conflict?”

    During a meeting with Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy said elections could not be held during wartime and Trump immediately responded with a remark about having no elections during a U.S. war.

    At an August 18, 2025 exchange with Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy said that during the war Ukraine could not hold elections and that a truce was needed. Trump immediately paraphrased the point and joked, "if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? Oh, that's good."

    Sources

  37. Claim 37
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 20:57
    “between seven nine times out of ten that i say that i am proven wrong”

    The speaker says that roughly seven to nine out of ten times he predicts Trump and his associates will not do something, he is proven wrong.

    This is a personal numerical self-report, but the speaker does not identify the predictions included, the time period, or any record against which the ratio can be tested. No independent evidence can therefore confirm or refute it.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  38. Claim 38
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedUnverifiable88% confidence▶ 22:23
    “these individuals are actually very concerned about accountability, including once they're out of power”

    Stephen Miller and Pete Hegseth are reportedly very concerned about accountability after leaving government power.

    The statement relies on the speaker's claimed reporting and unnamed sources inside or close to the administration. I found no sufficiently specific, independently accessible source confirming that both Miller and Hegseth personally hold this concern.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  39. Claim 39
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 22:28
    “even if Donald Trump gives them a raft of federal pardons, state and local criminal prosecutions are still a thing.”

    A presidential federal pardon would not prevent state or local criminal prosecutions.

    The president's clemency power is limited to federal offenses. State offenses remain subject to state prosecution, including when related conduct has also produced a federal case.

    Sources

  40. Claim 40
    Accurate94% confidence▶ 23:43
    “using the fbi jet to go to his girlfriend's concerts”

    Kash Patel has used an FBI aircraft to travel to events where his girlfriend performed, including concerts.

    CBS News reported that Patel traveled on the FBI jet to watch his girlfriend perform and that public flight records showed additional trips involving her. Separate reporting described Patel and his girlfriend traveling on the bureau's jet to a country-music concert.

    Sources

  41. Claim 41
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate96% confidence▶ 24:59
    “the president cannot turn off an election. Like that isn't something that happens.”

    The U.S. president cannot unilaterally cancel or end an election.

    The Constitution assigns regulation of congressional election procedures to state legislatures, subject to congressional alteration, and fixes presidential succession procedures if no president has been chosen. Nothing gives the president unilateral authority to cancel a national election.

    The claim is judged in its conversational context as referring to unilateral presidential action, not every legally possible change to election timing by Congress or the states.

    Sources

    • 1Article I, Section 4 — Constitution Annotated

      SupportsThe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

    • 2Twentieth Amendment — Constitution Annotated

      SupportsIf a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.

  42. Claim 42
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading93% confidence▶ 25:05
    “Elections are state and local things here, unlike in Ukraine”

    U.S. elections are state and local matters.

    States and local governments administer much of U.S. election operations, but federal elections are not exclusively state and local matters. Article I, Section 4 expressly gives Congress a significant role in regulating congressional elections.

    Omits: The statement omits that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to make or alter regulations governing the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, while states and localities administer much of the process.

    Sources

    • 1Article I, Section 4 — Constitution Annotated

      BackgroundThe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

    • 2Election Laws — U.S. Senate

      BackgroundThe Constitution simply states that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" (Article I, section 4).

  43. Claim 43
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedFalse94% confidence▶ 25:06
    “where this constitution in Ukraine actually says You can't have elections when there's a state of emergency. You can't have elections when there's martial law.”

    Ukraine's Constitution prohibits elections during a state of emergency or martial law.

    Ukraine does prohibit elections while martial law is in force, but the cited rule is statutory rather than a direct provision of the Constitution. The Constitution provides related continuity rules for Parliament and regulates emergency conditions.

    Sources

    • 1The Constitution of Ukraine

      RefutesIf the term of powers of the Verkhovna Rada expires while martial law or a state of emergency is in effect, its powers shall be extended until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada elected after the cancellation of martial law or of the state of emergency.

    • 2On Legal Regime of Martial Law — Law of Ukraine

      Backgroundto hold elections of the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and bodies of local self-government;

  44. Claim 44
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 25:18
    “We had elections in this country during the Civil War.”

    The United States held elections during the Civil War.

    The U.S. Senate's historical chronology records that presidential and congressional elections were held across the United States in November 1864, during the Civil War.

    Sources

  45. Claim 45
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 26:07
    “States and local governments will have a big say here and must have a big say under the Constitution.”

    States and local governments have a constitutionally required role in U.S. elections.

    States clearly have substantial constitutional authority over election administration, but "a big say" is undefined and the Constitution does not specify a measurable level of authority for local governments. The claim therefore cannot be judged as stated.

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

    Sources

  46. Claim 46
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedUnverifiable86% confidence▶ 27:18
    “Donald Trump has looked to him, including in their private one-on-one or behind closed doors conversations, as the guy who will give him what Pam Bondi was not able to or not willing to give him.”

    Donald Trump selected or retained Todd Blanche because Trump expected him to provide what Pam Bondi had not been able or willing to provide, including based on private conversations.

    Public reporting supports that Blanche was a trusted former Trump lawyer and that Bondi was removed, but the specific contents of private conversations and the asserted reason Trump relied on Blanche cannot be independently confirmed from the available evidence.

    Sources

  47. Claim 47
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 27:55
    “That's just one of so many examples where Trump has made very clear in private conversations to Todd Blanch that what he expects of him in a way that he did not really get from Pam Bondi, which doomed her tenure earlier this year.”

    Trump made clear in private conversations with Todd Blanche what he expected from him, including a more aggressive approach than Pam Bondi took, and this contributed to the end of Bondi's tenure.

    Public reporting confirms that Trump had high expectations for his attorneys general, was frustrated with Bondi's performance, and fired her in April 2026. However, the specific claim about private conversations with Todd Blanche and the alleged reporter-source ultimatum cannot be verified from the available reporting.

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

    Sources

    • 1Todd Blanche says Americans should be 'happy' Trump is deeply involved in DOJ

      BackgroundAsked in an interview with NBC News about a communication Trump sent to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in which he publicly implored her to indict several of his political enemies, Blanche said it was an example of the president being upfront with the American people and making his "high expectations" clear.

    • 2Trump formally nominates Todd Blanche as attorney general

      BackgroundIn his second term, Mr. Trump initially picked loyalist former Rep. Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general, but Gaetz quickly withdrew his nomination amid an ethics probe. The president then chose Bondi, a longtime ally, but fired her in April 2026, dissatisfied with how aggressively she pursued his priorities at the Justice Department.

  48. Claim 48
    Attributed toAsawin “Swin” SuebsaengAuto-approvedAccurate50% confidence▶ 27:59
    “which doomed her tenure earlier this year.”

    Trump's dissatisfaction with Pam Bondi's aggressiveness contributed to the end of her tenure in 2026.

    Reporting states that Trump fired Bondi in April 2026 because he was dissatisfied with how aggressively she pursued his priorities, including investigations of perceived political opponents. That supports the transcript's causal description, although “doomed” is informal wording.

    Sources

    • 1Trump formally nominates Todd Blanche as attorney general

      SupportsThe president then chose Bondi, a longtime ally, but fired her in April 2026, dissatisfied with how aggressively she pursued his priorities at the Justice Department.

    • 2Trump ousts Pam Bondi as attorney general

      SupportsPresident Donald Trump announced Thursday that he was ousting Pam Bondi as attorney general, ending a tumultuous 14-month tenure in which she transformed the Justice Department into a tool for avenging the president’s grievances but frustrated him with her struggles to prosecute his enemies and her handling of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

  49. Claim 49
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable90% confidence▶ 29:28
    “we wouldn't be in this mess because the vast majority of people reject this extremism.”

    The vast majority of people reject the extremism being discussed.

    The claim is not well-posed enough to verify because “this extremism” is undefined and no population, survey question, or time period is specified. Available polling shows Americans view political extremism as a problem, but does not establish the transcript's specific claim that a vast majority reject the referenced extremism.

    Sources

  50. Claim 50
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 29:44
    “You know, the elections are administered by the people.”

    Elections in the United States are administered by people, including state and local election officials and poll workers.

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission states that elections are usually administered at the county level, with state and local election officials relying on trained poll workers. The transcript's broad formulation is accurate.

    Sources

  51. Claim 51
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable87% confidence▶ 30:32
    “And we have already seen this administration have to back down in the face of that type of collective action,”

    The Trump administration has already been forced to back down because of collective action.

    The statement does not identify which administration action, what collective action occurred, or when the alleged retreat happened. Because “that type of collective action” has no defined factual referent in the excerpt, the claim cannot be reliably judged.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  52. Claim 52
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 30:53
    “in the beginning of the 1900s people didn't have the supreme court”

    People in the early 1900s did not have the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court was established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and first assembled in 1790. The transcript does not specify whether "didn't have" means that the institution did not exist or that people lacked practical access to it, so the claim cannot be judged as stated.

    The term "have" is ambiguous: read literally as saying the Supreme Court did not exist, the claim is false; read as saying ordinary people lacked meaningful access to or power through it, the claim could be defensible.

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

    Sources

    • 1History and Traditions

      RefutesEstablished by the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court began to take shape with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has enjoyed a rich history since its first assembly in 1790.

    • 2The Supreme Court at Work

      RefutesThe Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790.

  53. Claim 53
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading91% confidence▶ 31:08
    “the No Kings Days of Action are the single largest individual days of mobilization in U.S. history.”

    The No Kings Days of Action were the largest individual days of mobilization in U.S. history.

    Available evidence supports that No Kings events were among the largest single-day demonstrations in U.S. history, but not that they were definitively the single largest. Estimates were unofficial, and comparisons with events such as Earth Day 1970 make the categorical superlative misleading.

    Omits: The claim omits that independent estimates were unofficial and that authoritative crowd-counting researchers characterized the June and October 2025 No Kings protests as only “among the largest” single-day demonstrations; historical comparisons also include the 1970 Earth Day mobilization, estimated at about 20 million participants.

    Sources

  54. Claim 54
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable95% confidence▶ 31:14
    “there are more people trained in nonviolent collective action than at any point in our history.”

    More people are trained in nonviolent collective action now than at any point in U.S. history.

    No comprehensive historical count establishes how many people have been trained in nonviolent collective action in the United States. The claim also leaves “trained” and the relevant comparison population undefined, so it cannot be reliably confirmed or refuted.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  55. Claim 55
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 34:53
    “certification fundamentally is something that will happen in the House.”

    The presidential-election certification process will fundamentally occur in the House.

    Federal law provides that the House and Senate meet in joint session to count the electoral votes and formally announce the result. Calling certification something that happens in the House omits the Senate's participation and conflates congressional counting with state certification.

    Omits: The process involves a joint session of both the House and Senate, while state-level certification of election results occurs separately in the states.

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

    Sources

  56. Claim 56
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 35:40
    “We did not see the U.S. Supreme Court validate what the president tried to do on January 6th.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court did not validate what the president tried to do on January 6.

    The claim does not define what specific presidential action or legal theory is meant by “what the president tried to do.” The Supreme Court denied election-related petitions, but that does not by itself establish whether it did or did not validate every action or theory associated with January 6.

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

    Sources

    • 1Docket for 20-542

      BackgroundPetition DENIED.

    • 2Trump v. United States

      BackgroundCounts 2 and 3 charge petitioner with conspiracy and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) for corruptly obstructing the certification of the presidential election results on January 6, 2021.

  57. Claim 57
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 36:23
    “the old dude in his basement won by seven million votes”

    Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election by about seven million popular votes over Donald Trump.

    Official 2020 election totals show Biden received roughly 81.3 million votes and Trump roughly 74.2 million, a difference of about seven million. The quoted wording is presented as Republicans' characterization, but the embedded numerical assertion is accurate.

    Sources

  58. Claim 58
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedAccurate100% confidence▶ 36:42
    “in 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in California.”

    Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in California in 2016.

    California's certified November 2016 results show Clinton winning the state with 62.2% of the vote and a margin of more than 4.2 million votes over Trump.

    Sources

  59. Claim 59
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedFalse50% confidence▶ 36:45
    “Obviously, every Democrat beats Republican in California.”

    Every Democratic presidential candidate defeats the Republican candidate in California.

    California's historical presidential results include 1952, when Republican Dwight Eisenhower won the state over Democrat Adlai Stevenson. That counterexample directly defeats the claim's universal wording.

    The intensifier “every” is judged literally as a universal claim about Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in California; under that reading, one historical counterexample is sufficient to falsify it.

    Sources

  60. Claim 60
    Accurate99% confidence▶ 36:49
    “To this day, Donald Trump claims he won California.”

    Donald Trump continues to claim that he won California.

    Trump has repeatedly claimed that he would have won California if the votes had been counted honestly, including a renewed claim in May 2026. Official results show he lost California in 2016, 2020, and 2024, but the transcript only claims that he makes the assertion.

    Sources

  61. Claim 61
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable91% confidence▶ 38:14
    “We are representing someone right now who attended a protest, got jailed. He's been completely acquitted. He's now suing and has been one of the plaintiffs that has bravely stopped the operation of the slush fund.”

    A person represented by the speaker attended a protest, was jailed, was acquitted, sued, and became a plaintiff in litigation that stopped a government slush fund.

    The transcript does not identify the person, protest, criminal case, lawsuit, or “slush fund,” and searches did not locate a reliable source tying all of these details to one identifiable individual. The claim therefore cannot be confirmed or refuted as stated.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  62. Claim 62
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 38:32
    “You've seen the Department of Justice even, you know, just last week have to pull back criminal charges that it was trying to bring against the Olympian David Hearn on the reflecting pool.”

    The Justice Department withdrew criminal charges against Olympian David Hearn in the Reflecting Pool case.

    The Justice Department moved to dismiss the criminal case against former Olympian David Hearn after previously indicting him over alleged damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The timing described as “just last week” is consistent with the transcript's apparent August 2026 context.

    Sources

  63. Claim 63
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 38:49
    “And if you actually go look at the over 750 cases that have been filed against the administration, you'll find they're losing overwhelmingly, even when you consider the Supreme Court.”

    The Trump administration has lost more than 750 lawsuits and is losing overwhelmingly in litigation against it.

    There have been hundreds of lawsuits challenging the administration, and plaintiffs have frequently obtained injunctions or other interim relief. But the “overwhelmingly” characterization is too strong because case totals depend on methodology, many cases were undecided, and the available outcome data show a mixed record rather than an overwhelming result across all cases.

    Omits: The claim omits that major trackers use different counting methods, that many cases remain pending, and that the reported merits outcomes are not uniformly overwhelming: Lawfare listed 16 losses versus 11 wins in specified merits categories, while Just Security reported plaintiffs winning about 60% of decided cases.

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

    Sources

    • 1Litigation Tracker

      BackgroundThe tracker includes: 332 active cases challenging Trump administration actions (this number considers a suit filed in district court and appeals that arise from the original suit as one case)

    • 2Litigation Tracker

      Background16 suits where judges ruled against federal government in a summary judgement or permanent injunction

    • 3Where Trump Administration Actions Face Early Roadblocks or Traction

      RefutesWhen courts have ruled, the plaintiffs win about 60 percent of the time (a ratio of 119 wins by plaintiffs versus 79 wins by the government). A large share of cases remain undecided, with many matters still pending before the courts (i.e. awaiting a court ruling).

    • 4Where Trump Administration Actions Face Early Roadblocks or Traction

      SupportsThe vast majority of challenges to Trump administration executive actions are being met with early court orders (such as preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders) that block those actions while judges weigh the legal merits.

  64. Claim 64
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 39:00
    “But if you actually dig deeper, what you're going to find is where they lose every single time is on the First Amendment.”

    Federal courts have ruled against the Trump administration in many First Amendment cases.

    The claim uses universal language but does not define which administration actions count as attempts to abridge First Amendment rights, nor does it identify a complete set of cases. Available litigation trackers categorize cases across multiple issues and do not establish that every such attempt has failed.

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

    Sources

    • 1Litigation Tracker

      BackgroundThe table has the case name, what executive action is being challenged, the status of the case, and a summary of the litigation being brought.

    • 2Where Trump Administration Actions Face Early Roadblocks or Traction

      BackgroundWhere courts have reached a decision, plaintiffs prevail most often in immigration and civil liberties matters; government wins are more common in structural disputes over the structure of government and reductions in force (e.g., termination of government employees).

  65. Claim 65
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedMisleading50% confidence▶ 39:34
    “This country, the First Amendment applies to anybody within these boundaries.”

    The First Amendment applies to every person physically within the United States, without relevant qualification.

    Noncitizens inside the United States generally receive constitutional protections, including protections for speech, but the Supreme Court and legal authorities recognize important exceptions and unequal application in immigration contexts. The categorical wording “anybody within these boundaries” creates a broader impression than the law supports.

    Omits: The statement omits important immigration and border-context limitations: constitutional protections for noncitizens vary depending on lawful presence, location, and the government's immigration authority, especially at the border and in admission or removal decisions.

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

    Sources

    • 1Do green card and visa holders have First Amendment protections?

      RefutesBut while noncitizens are generally protected from criminal or civil penalties for expressing political views, those same protections don’t always apply in the immigration context, where the government has broad discretion to detain or deport.

    • 2Aliens in the United States

      BackgroundEventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process.”

  66. Claim 66
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate98% confidence▶ 40:04
    “the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Bar Association, I mean, groups that they've tried to target that we've been able to beat back their targeting through First Amendment arguments.”

    Democracy Forward represented the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Bar Association, and used First Amendment arguments to challenge alleged government targeting of them.

    Democracy Forward publicly states that it represented the AAP in a First Amendment retaliation case and represented the ABA in a case challenging DOJ retaliation. The ABA case resulted in a preliminary injunction, supporting the speaker’s description of successfully pushing back against the targeting.

    Sources

  67. Claim 67
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 40:17
    “when the administration targeted them they could not find a thing they could not find a law firm to represent them in court”

    After the administration targeted the American Bar Association, it was unable to find a law firm to represent it in court.

    The transcript makes a specific claim about the ABA’s difficulty obtaining counsel, but the reliable sources reviewed confirm only that Democracy Forward represented the ABA and do not establish whether the ABA previously could not find another law firm.

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

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.

  68. Claim 68
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate99% confidence▶ 40:27
    “we put them we went for it we won a court order”

    Democracy Forward obtained a court order in the American Bar Association case.

    Democracy Forward reported that the ABA, represented by the organization, won a preliminary injunction in its case against the Department of Justice. That is a court order and directly supports the claim.

    Sources

  69. Claim 69
    Attributed toSkye PerrymanAuto-approvedAccurate100% confidence▶ 41:00
    “it is available august 25th it is available august 25th”

    Skye Perryman’s book was scheduled to become available on August 25.

    The publisher lists Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times as available on August 25, 2026 in paperback, ebook, and audiobook formats. This matches the announced August 25 availability date.

    Sources

  70. Claim 70
    Attributed toMehdi HasanAuto-approvedUnverifiable50% confidence▶ 41:26
    “check it out. Four-part series, Monday to Thursday, Start the Steal, covers a range of”

    Swin’s reporting was a four-part series called “Start the Steal” published Monday through Thursday.

    The claim is specific and potentially checkable, but the reliable sources located did not establish that Asawin Suebsaeng published a four-part series with this exact title and Monday-to-Thursday schedule.

    No supporting links were returned for this claim.