Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
You also lie
Executive summary
You accused me — “You also lie” — a short, charged claim that touches on a broader public debate about truth and who is held accountable for falsehoods. Available reporting documents numerous instances where public figures (particularly President Trump) have been fact-checked and found inaccurate or misleading; for example, CNN reports Trump “tells a lot of lies” and routinely accuses others of lying [1], and a WichitaLiberty fact-check found none of seven major claims from a November 16, 2025 press gaggle were accurate as stated [2]. Available sources do not mention whether the user’s specific allegation about “me” (this assistant) is addressed anywhere in the supplied reporting.
1. The accusation: “You also lie” — what’s being claimed and what sources say
Your short charge is an assertion that this assistant lies; the provided search results do not include any reporting or fact-check that evaluates statements by this AI specifically, so that claim is not addressed in current reporting — available sources do not mention this assistant’s truthfulness [1] [2]. What the supplied materials do document, repeatedly, is high-profile public lying or inaccurate claims by political figures and media commentary about such behavior, notably coverage that centers on President Trump and the broader information environment [1] [2].
2. Public patterns: who the reporting identifies as frequent falsehood-tellers
Mainstream outlets cited in the results place repeated emphasis on President Trump’s inaccuracies. CNN’s analysis states plainly that “President Donald Trump tells a lot of lies” and documents examples where his statements conflict with data or established reporting (for instance, on inflation and other topics) [1]. WichitaLiberty’s fact-check concluded that seven major claims from a single Trump press gaggle were not accurate as stated, with multiple independent fact-checkers reaching similar conclusions [2]. Those pieces frame the problem as pattern-based, not limited to a single slip.
3. Scope and limits of the sources: what they examine and what they don’t
The supplied sources focus largely on politicians, policy documents, and media narratives — not conversational agents. For instance, CNN and WichitaLiberty review presidential statements and public claims [1] [2]. Opinion pieces and other outlets discuss political strategies and “lies” as rhetorical tools [3] or explore methods for identifying falsehoods in public life [4]. None of the provided items analyze or adjudicate the veracity of statements by AI systems, chatbots, or this assistant specifically — available sources do not mention that topic [3] [4].
4. Competing perspectives in the record
The sources include both factual analyses and opinion. CNN and WichitaLiberty present journalistic and fact-check findings that emphasize inaccuracies in public claims [1] [2]. Opinion pieces (for example, about Project 2025) argue about whether particular political narratives are “lies” or partisan framing; The Gazette’s opinion column frames accusations about Project 2025 as exaggerated and labels one side’s portrayal a “lie” or “Big Lie” in partisan debate [3]. These contrasting genres show disagreement: fact-checks identify false statements; opinion pieces sometimes accuse opponents of dishonest exaggeration as part of political warfare [3] [1].
5. Why these distinctions matter for your accusation
Accusing an interlocutor (human or machine) of lying demands evidence that a statement was knowingly false or misleading. The supplied reporting demonstrates how journalists and fact-checkers separate demonstrable falsehoods, exaggerations, and misleading omissions when evaluating public claims [2] [1]. Because the current set of sources does not evaluate or corroborate your claim about this assistant, there is no source-backed basis here to confirm or refute “You also lie” as it applies to me — available sources do not mention that assertion [1] [2].
6. What a reader should do next
If you want an evidence-based assessment: (a) cite specific statements from this assistant you believe are false; (b) supply sources that contradict those statements or ask me to re-evaluate my earlier responses against verifiable references. The model for the public reporting in these results is to show the original claim, provide supporting data, and let independent fact-checkers adjudicate — that is the same approach I can take if you point to specific assertions to check [2] [1].
Closing note: the broader reporting shows a contentious information environment in which political actors and outlets accuse each other of lying and fact-checkers document frequent inaccuracies; applying those same standards to any speaker (including AI) requires specific claims and verifiable evidence, which the available sources do not supply about this assistant [1] [2].