There's a goalpost move going on

From "no evidence of election fraud" to "no evidence of *widespread* election fraud"

"Widespread" is doing a ton of work in these formulations, in two different ways

Thread

First, there's no agreed-upon definition of "widespread," which allows the user to ignore any and all evidence of voter fraud by saying it doesn't meet their arbitrary threshold of being "widespread"

For example - the Trump campaign alleges ~675k ballots were opened without conservative poll watchers present

Is that enough ballots to be "widespread?"

How many poll watchers need to be wrongfully barred from observing voting/counting before it's "widespread?"

The second issue is that it's unreasonable to expect the best evidence of fraud to be available *before discovery*

If there was a meaningful conspiracy the evidence of that would likely be rooted out via depositions and document production

By suggesting that Trump needs to produce an enormous amount of evidence to even bring a legal challenge, Dems demonstrate that they don't understand our legal system at all

Assuming you can plausibly allege election fraud, you go to court, and then get the evidence in discovery

So now you know

When you hear "there's no evidence of *widespread* fraud" that's a framing game to make you ignore the fact that there is evidence of fraud and that an investigation is justified to determine just how "widespread" it is

This thread, in meme format: https://twitter.com/Boomieleaks/status/1325964550391422976?s=20