These days, in the populist era, politicians - if they are bold and shameless enough - will make statements they know will be contradicted.
Take US President Donald Trump's denial to reporters that he made a US$1 million bet (for charity) that Senator Elizabeth Warren could not prove her native American heritage. Yet he was on tape offering the bet at a political rally on July 5 in Montana. Technology proved it. Case closed.
Trump, however, subsequently eased his way out of the situation with a "joke" about only agreeing to it if he could test her himself, which he said he wouldn't enjoy, and went back to calling her Pocahontas. Everyone moved on.
The reason the facts didn't matter to Trump in this case is that he is usually only speaking to the 38-45 per cent of Americans who back him in a fractured, polarised political system. Trump made the facts irrelevant by playing on the tribalism of the moment. He was jabbing at a key opponent and he knew his base would lap it up.
His methods - playing loose with basic facts - have become so common they lack any impact. If the intended target audience does not care, or believes Trump over facts, the power of facts to hurt the President is greatly diminished.