This gets to the heart of the problem around post-truth. Just who defines "truth"?
How does that fit in to the checks and balances in a democratic society? Does everything have to go through the courts?
Apparently real world data and scientifically proven facts are not considered "truth" any more.
We are now free to define our own alternative truth, like when you say someone wiretapped you, your subordinates who you say would have been responsible for doing so refute your claim, the people who you say will back you up also refuse to do so and say there's no evidence to support you, yet you keep repeating the same thing as your official spokesperson says you misspoke and/or didn't mean it the first time.
I thought truth was universal and limited to what has actually occurred, in a factual sense, rather than a matter of opinion, but a lot of people seem not to agree any more. Pretty scary.