Analysis Summary:

The article appears mostly accurate, focusing on fact-checking claims made by President Trump during his first 100 days. The primary claim of "nonstop distortion of facts" is supported by the provided sources, although the snippet is limited. There's a moderate bias evident in the framing of the article, particularly the opening sentence, which assumes a negative premise.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** "The president’s dizzying efforts to reconfigure the global economy, reshape the federal government and restrict immigration have been undergirded by a nonstop distortion of facts."
  • Verification Source #1: Supports the general idea of numerous false or misleading claims by Trump.
  • Verification Source #4: Supports the idea of fact-checking claims related to immigration.
  • Verification Source #5: Directly addresses fact-checking Trump's first 100 days, noting at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days in 2017. This supports the claim of "nonstop distortion of facts" but is from a previous term.
  • Verification Source #2: Focuses on claims about the war in Ukraine, indicating a continuation of potentially false claims.
  • Verification Source #3: Addresses fact-checking Trump's address to Congress, further supporting the idea of ongoing fact-checking needs.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #1: "Trump's false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years" - This provides quantitative evidence of a pattern of false claims.
• Verification Source #5: "The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" - This directly supports the claim of frequent inaccuracies during his first 100 days (in 2017).
• Verification Source #2: Provides an example of fact-checking specific claims related to the Ukraine war, showing the continuation of the need for fact-checking.
• The sources generally agree that Trump has a history of making false or misleading statements. The snippet's claim of "nonstop distortion of facts" is supported by the frequency of fact-checks required, as evidenced by the sources.
• The sources do not contradict each other. They provide different examples and perspectives on the same general issue.
• The snippet is limited, and a full assessment would require access to the entire article to see the specific claims being fact-checked and the evidence presented.