Thread by @sethjlevy

1/ I’m going to describe two scenarios.

Not claiming either one actually happened.

At the end I will ask this question: Given the current election laws and the changes implemented in 2020, how could you differentiate the two after the fact?

2/ Scenario 1

A completely above board election conducted during a pandemic where everyone involved’s primary objective was to produce an accurate result.

In person voting was handled properly. Mail in voting was done 100% by the books.

3/ Miraculously voters took their responsibilities seriously and filled out the envelopes immaculately leading to a reduction in the rejection rate from 6% to .1%.

After stripping the ballot from the envelopes they were run through the machines and results were tabulated.

4/ When a recount was required the ballots, that were stacked up after they were run through the machines the first time, where run through the machines a second time with similar results.

Biden wins.

5/ Scenario 2

A completely corrupt election took place during a pandemic where everyone involved’s primary objective was to produce a Biden victory.

In person voting was affected but the real manipulation occurred in the mail in voting.

6/ Voters behaved as they always have historically which would have resulted in a 5-10% mail in ballot rejection rate but the decision was made to “count all the votes” and ignore any errors.

7/ Not taking any chances, election officials in cities like Atlanta printed up ballots of people on the roles who hadn’t voted in multiple cycles. They marked the ballots for Biden and ran them through the machines with the real ballots that’d been stripped of their envelopes.

8/ When a recount was required the ballots, that were stacked up after they were run through the machines the first time, where run through the machines a second time with similar results.

Biden wins.

9/ So again I ask, given the current election laws and the changes implemented in 2020, how could you differentiate the two after the fact?

10/ If the answer is that you can’t without detailed and intrusive investigation and that level of investigation was systematically blocked then how can you say with confidence that there wasn’t enough fraud to change the election outcome?

11/ Given how the system blocked that level of investigation of the electioneering process, the only way Trump’s team could have proved fraud in scenario 2 would have been if an insider stepped forward and admitted what happened.

But that was never going to happen.

12/ So I will concede that Trump never “proved” fraud that would have changed the outcome. That said, the election officials in these states never proved it didn’t. They just declared it didn’t and without proof otherwise the courts accepted their claims.

13/ Now stepping back, everything else that we now know suggests that Democrats and the establishment class in general was highly motivated to rid themselves of Trump. We saw them break all norms in public to defeat him. Time magazine is boasting about it.

14/ So in every way we can see publicly institutions broke all norms to defeat Trump but election officials in cities like Detroit and Philadelphia held themselves to a different standard while engaged in a process, electioneering, that happens behind closed doors. Really?

15/ Again, I’m not claiming scenario 2 happened because I can’t prove it and I’m not afforded to same latitude as Democrats to make unsubstantiated claims.

I’m pointing out that you can’t prove based on the current available evidence or (non) investigations that it didn’t. /end