The most significant rebukes of Trump’s voter fraud claims

But while the writing is on the wall for Trump, not all rebukes are the same. Some of them carry more weight, especially when it comes to who is saying them and what they’re saying. Put plainly: Some key people who have an interest in breathing life into Trump’s allegations or allowing them to take in their own oxygen are refusing to do so.

Let’s run through some of them.

The statement even put that part in bold.

“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,” the statement said (emphasis theirs).

The statement continued: “While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”

To be clear, this was Trump’s own administration citing “unfounded claims” that Trump was promoting.

The agency’s director, Chris Krebs, promoted the statement, saying, “America, we have confidence in the security of your vote, you should, too.”

Krebs logically said he expected to be fired, according to Politico. But in an interesting turn, as the New York Post reported, acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf — a Trump loyalist if there ever was one — has defied Trump’s order.

If there is one Republican operative with the most experience in high-profile contested elections, it might be Karl Rove. Not only is he a veteran of Bush v. Gore, but he is also a rare Republican who actually got an election result overturned while alleging malfeasance: a 1994 Alabama Supreme Court race.

Even he has said it’s over. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal last week headlined, “This Election Result Won’t Be Overturned,” Rove said Trump’s effort is for naught because of the size of his deficit in key states. Trump has to overturn the results in at least three states, all of which have a margin of at least 10,000 votes.

“The president’s efforts are unlikely to move a single state from Mr. Biden’s column, and certainly they’re not enough to change the final outcome,” Rove writes. He adds: “To win, Mr. Trump must prove systemic fraud, with illegal votes in the tens of thousands. There is no evidence of that so far.”

Those close to Trump have engaged in a delicate dance: assuring that Trump won’t burn the place down, while also reserving his right to challenge the result. On Monday, national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien seemed to go further than those around him in acknowledging reality.

“We may have policy disagreements, but, look, if the Biden-Harris ticket is determined to be the winner — obviously, things look that way now — we’ll have a very professional transition from the National Security Council,” O’Brien said at the Global Security Forum. “There’s no question about it.”

O’Brien is among the most loyal Trump allies in the administration. You could parse that answer endlessly, but it certainly goes further than what most people around Trump have been willing to say.

GOP senators have increasingly — if slowly — acknowledged the same thing, with Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) referring to Biden as “president-elect” on Monday and Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) saying, “I have every confidence that come January the 20th, we’re going to inaugurate a new president. And I think it will probably be Joe Biden.”

Last week, Attorney General William P. Barr gave U.S. attorneys the authority to review voter fraud cases before states certify their election results — a controversial announcement that ran afoul of long-standing Justice Department policy. Some read Barr’s announcement as feeding into Trump’s claims, while others read it as potentially trying to mollify Trump with a watered-down memo.

“The policy change was not based in fact,” the assistant U.S. attorneys said, according to a letter reviewed by The Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky and Tom Hamburger.

“You are the most senior leaders in the United States Department of Justice, and I trust you to exercise great care and judgment in addressing allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities,” the assistant U.S. attorneys wrote. “While serious allegations should be handled with great care, specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries.”

No state election official has cut a higher profile than Raffensperger in recent weeks. That’s because he’s gone further than most anyone in explicitly rebuking voter fraud claims. And for his trouble, he’s found himself attacked by Trump and others including both of Georgia’s GOP senators, Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who called for his resignation.

“We have ongoing investigations, but we have not seen something widespread,” he said last week, saying there was nothing near that scale that would be required to overturn Biden’s lead in the state.

Raffensperger has also hit back at GOP critics, suggesting they were simply sore about losing. In a lengthy statement responding to Loeffler and Perdue last week, he said: “I know emotions are running high. Politics are involved in everything right now. If I was Sen. Perdue, I’d be irritated I was in a runoff. And both Senators and I are all unhappy with the potential outcome for our President.”

One of the most undersold developments of the past two weeks is not just that Trump keeps losing in court, but that even those losing efforts aren’t actually alleging what he is alleging.

Repeatedly now, Trump’s lawyers have declined to allege the same voter fraud he alleges. Facing the unhelpful obstacle of actually substantiating Trump’s arguments, they have instead focused on purported irregularities. And when judges have pressed them on whether they’re actually alleging fraud, they have said no.

Here’s one scene with Trump lawyer Jonathan S. Goldstein in Pennsylvania:

JUDGE: In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That’s correct?

GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the [Democratic National Committee] or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.

JUDGE: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?

GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.

JUDGE: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?

GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.

Another Trump lawyer, Kory Langhofer, conceded last week in Arizona that he was “not alleging fraud” or “that anyone is stealing the election.” Langhofer said the Trump legal team was simply raising concerns about a “limited number of cases” involving “good-faith errors.”

That is decidedly not what Trump is alleging, though, and the fact that his lawyers won’t say it in court is among the most telling things of all.

J.M. Rieger contributed to this report.