No.
There is the concept of consilience of evidence. I have seen it most often in discussions of evolution. There, the concept is that evidence that comes from different fields of scientific endeavor and different research labs, institutions, etc. makes the case for evolution much stronger than just the individual facts.
The same concept applies to non-scientific claims. It is brusquely - probably too brusquely - stated as "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and goes quack, then it's probably a duck". The idea is that various lines of evidence which may not stand alone can, when combined, make a strong piece of evidence. I believe that is a valid line of thought.
Regarding Trumpian claims, this is our exact situation. He's a braggart. he's a lout, he's dishonest, he's a horn dog and he wear a ferret. The evidence behind each of those claims ranges from proven to obvious. The consilience of those claims are thus, without extremely powerful contravening evidence, justified.
PS: sunmaster14, your claim that you and marplots are alone in your use of logic is hereby refuted. Or, more correctly, again refuted.