X thread cites 55,000 Trump lies

An X thread posted on May 20 by the account @timeforhiding accused Donald Trump of telling more than 55,000 lies and linked that allegation to broader claims about corruption and constitutional limits on presidential profit. The post also cited the domestic emoluments clause and, in a related post, raised the prospect of IRS action tied to presidential profits. The thread drew thousands of replies, according to the source briefing for this story. Publicly available reporting supports parts of the thread’s framing, but not every number or legal claim in the posts can be independently confirmed from primary records. ### Where does the “55,000 lies” figure appear to come from? The clearest published benchmark is the Washington Post’s Fact Checker database, which said Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidential term from January 2017 to January 2021. That means the “more than 55,000” figure in the X thread does not match the Post’s final first-term total. The thread may be combining older fact-check tallies, later campaign statements, or other counts, but no authoritative public database surfaced in this reporting that independently documents a verified 55,000 total. (washingtonpost.com) ### What was the thread saying about the domestic emoluments clause? The Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause bars a president from receiving compensation beyond the fixed presidential salary from the federal government or from individual states, according to Congress’s research arm and legal summaries cited in recent reporting. (washingtonpost.com) Recent Trump-related litigation has revived that clause. The New York Times reported this month that a lawsuit over a proposed Trump presidential library development in Miami argues the arrangement would violate the domestic emoluments clause because it involves state-donated land. Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy separately said the clause had returned to legal debate through that dispute. (congress.gov) ### Did any source verify the thread’s IRS claim? No public source reviewed for this article established that the Internal Revenue Service had opened a specific action tied to the claim in the post. The briefing said one May 20 post “suggested possible IRS action against presidential profits,” but that appears to have been speculation by the poster rather than a documented agency move. Congressional Democrats have, however, been pressing the emoluments issue. (nytimes.com) House Judiciary Democrats said on April 16 that Representative Jamie Raskin introduced resolutions demanding Trump comply with the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses amid what they called presidential profiteering. ### Have courts settled these emoluments disputes? The Supreme Court in 2021 dismissed two emoluments cases against Trump as moot after he left office, leaving no final merits ruling on those claims. Legal summaries note that lower courts had allowed some claims to proceed, but the high court’s dismissal meant the underlying constitutional questions were not conclusively resolved in those cases. (democrats-judiciary.house.gov) That unresolved history helps explain why the clause remains a live political and legal reference point in 2026. Advocacy groups including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have continued to argue that Trump’s business interests raise emoluments concerns. (lawandcrime.com) ### What can readers verify directly from the X posts? The source briefing identifies the main post as an X thread by @timeforhiding dated May 20 and says it drew thousands of replies. Because the X pages did not render usable text in web retrieval for this report, the existence of the posts is supported here by the supplied briefing and post identifiers, while the exact wording available in the live thread could not be independently quoted from the platform fetch. (citizensforethics.org) The next verifiable step is on X itself: the cited post and the related emoluments post remain the primary record for what the account said on May 20, while any legal testing of those claims would come through court filings or public statements by agencies or lawmakers.