Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
79 72 85 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
80 72 88 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 1 promise resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 79 (likely 74 to 84, high confidence), from 102 claims: 64 factual claims, 38 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Gary Marcus's claims
3 claims
| Verdict | Kind | Said | Claim | Topic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mostly false | Factual | 4 May 2020 | Published numbers for flu deaths are likely overestimates. Factual · 4 May 2020 | Biosecurity |
| Mostly false | Factual | 17 Jan 2019 | According to Giuliani's disclosure on 2019-01-17, every tweet and statement like the one referenced was a lie, and Trump's campaign colluded. Factual · 17 Jan 2019 | Other |
| Mostly false | Factual | 17 Jan 2019 | A linked report confirms that Donald Trump took talking points from Vladimir Putin. Factual · 17 Jan 2019 | Other |
“confirmation that trump took talking points from putin”
Gary Marcus, writing on X 17 January 2019 Post by @GaryMarcus on X, 2019-01-17 (X)
A linked report confirms that Donald Trump took talking points from Vladimir Putin.
Mostly false False in substance, right in a detail.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2019-01-17. True: the linked report, or reporting available by that date, documents with firm sourcing (records, named officials, or on-record accounts) that Trump repeated specific talking points that came from Putin, and presents this as established rather than suspected. Mostly true: the report documents that Trump repeated Putin's talking points, but relies on strong sourcing that is not conclusive, or a minor detail differs. Mixed: the report shows Trump's statements closely matched Putin's or Kremlin talking points, but does not establish that he took them from Putin. Mostly false: the report shows only a loose similarity or a speculative link, and "confirmation" overstates it. False: the report does not address the matter, or credible evidence shows the talking points did not come from Putin.
Evidence
- Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration Salt Lake Tribune (news report) · 13 January 2019
“President Donald Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.”
- Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration Salt Lake Tribune (news report) · 13 January 2019
“Tillerson's account is at odds with the only detail that other administration officials were able to get from the interpreter, officials said. Though the interpreter refused to discuss the meeting, officials said, he conceded that Putin had denied any Russian involvement in the U.S. election and that Trump responded by saying, "I believe you."”
- Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration Salt Lake Tribune (news report) · 13 January 2019
“After this story was published online, Trump said in an interview late Saturday with Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that he did not take particular steps to conceal his private meetings with Putin and attacked The Washington Post and its owner Jeff Bezos.”
- Trump Offers Baffling History Lesson on the Soviet Union The Daily Beast · 3 January 2019
“Trump's comments quickly blew up in Russian media, with Kremlin friendly news sites like REN-TV appearing to lightly mock him for discovering an "extremely curious" reason for the fall of the Soviet Union.”
- Donald Trump, master revisionist: What he said about Afghanistan, and what it says about him New York Daily News (opinion column by Garry Kasparov) · 4 January 2019
“Just a coincidence? So where did the President get this idea that the Soviets were right to be in Afghanistan? Keen observers have noted that Trump’s Twitter rants regularly regurgitate talking points from Fox News morning shows”
- Donald Trump, master revisionist: What he said about Afghanistan, and what it says about him New York Daily News (opinion column by Garry Kasparov) · 4 January 2019
“Nor is this the first time Trump has shared an oddly specific non-sequitur in line with Kremlin talking points.”
- 'Right To Be There'? Afghan Officials, Observers Dispute Trump's View Of Soviet Occupation Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty · 3 January 2019
“U.S. President Donald Trump's claim that the Soviet Union was in the "right" when it occupied Afghanistan for nearly a decade did not go down well with many Afghans, and his take on Moscow's justification for invading the country was also questioned.”
Reasoning
The Salt Lake Tribune report (E1–E3) says Trump concealed details of his conversations with Putin, citing unnamed officials, but does not say he took or repeated talking points from Putin. Kasparov's opinion column (E5–E6) calls Trump's remarks in line with Kremlin talking points and asks where the idea came from ('Just a coincidence?'), noting that his Twitter rants regularly repeat Fox News talking points; it does not document a Putin source. Other coverage (E4, E7) records criticism of the remarks without linking them to Putin. The evidence shows at most a speculative link, so describing it as 'confirmation' overstates it.
Cite this claim
Gary Marcus, “A linked report confirms that Donald Trump took talking points from Vladimir Putin.” (said 17 January 2019). Verdict: mostly false. Reliability API, claim c_30cc8aeb54f1, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_30cc8aeb54f1
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Gary Marcus? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.