Mark Meadows went on with Jake Tapper and was reminded that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Meadows didn’t disagree with that statement, but he retorted:
“there is no evidence that there is not either.”
Let’s play with some logical analogies to comprehend the absurdity of this response. Let’s say the following: There is no evidence that person “A” is a criminal. but there is no evidence that person A is not a criminal. And since there is no evidence that he is not a criminal, we need to treat him as if he were a criminal (just to be sure, one supposes). In other words, even if we have found no evidence that person A is a criminal, we have to collect evidence that he is not a criminal. Question: what evidence would be satisfactory? How does one collect evidence of non-criminal behavior? We are not talking about “motive” here, we are talking about everyday behavior. Of course, anyone can see the absurdity of this.
In science, guided by logical principles, we can make assertions about phenomena that has happened, we can witness it, document it, effectively prove its existence by repeated observations of it.
So no one has observed widespread voter fraud. Surely, if it were widespread, it would have, to that extent, been widely observed.
You obviously can’t observe a non-occurrence. And, unfortunately, Mark Meadows is an idiot, who has mastered the technique of speaking, dressing and looking like a chief of staff for a failed president.