SpinkillerAI — AI-Powered Fact-Checker
Find the Quote. Expose the Spin. SpinkillerAI is an AI-powered fact-checking platform for investigating public figures and verifying statements against primary sources.
Spin Tracker
Enter any public figure's name and a topic. SpinkillerAI searches verified quotes, speeches, interviews, and voting records to surface position changes, flip-flops, and contradictions — with direct source citations and a shareable dossier.
Start a Spin Tracker investigation — free
Claim Tracker
Paste any claim or statistic. SpinkillerAI fact-checks it against government data, peer-reviewed research, and established reporting — returning a verdict (True, Mostly True, Misleading, False, or Unverifiable), a confidence score, and a permanent shareable link.
Check a statement — free
Non-Partisan Analysis
SpinkillerAI applies identical analytical scrutiny regardless of the political direction of the claim. All outputs use neutral attribution language and work only from documented evidence.
Privacy and Data Handling
Statements and searches submitted to SpinkillerAI are processed by AI to generate fact-check results. See our privacy policy for full details on data handling.
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Senate candidate in Michigan refused to identify which country, Iran or Israel, is a greater threat to America
True
Accuracy: True. Yes. The passages identify Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and say he had recently refused in a NewsNation interview to say whether Israel or Iran was a bigger threat, and that in the debate he again declined to give a direct answer, calling it a “ridiculous hypothetical.” No supplied passage materially contradicts that. One source phrases it as declining to say Iran was more dangerous than Israel, which still matches the core claim that he did not choose between them.
Verdict confidence: 96/100. Direct excerpts say Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed recently refused in a NewsNation interview to say whether Israel or Iran was the bigger U.S. threat and again declined a direct answer in debate, calling it a “ridiculous hypothetical” [S2P3][S4P1]. S5P1 is consistent. Method: verdict-evidence-v1. Not a calibrated probability.