How the media uses the phrase, :without evidence", is a shame and a shame.

Commentators on NPR and other outlets frequently include the phrase, "without evidence", when they mention a claim made by Donald Trump. I frequently hear variations of these two examples.

1. Trump claims, without evidence, that the election in 2020 was plagued by fraud.
2. Trump claims, without evidence, that the charges against him are political witch hunts. 

Using this phrase is a sham and a shame for two reasons. First, some evidence exists for almost all the claims made by Trump. Second, the commentators apply a double standard; they use the phrase when talking about Trump but not when talking about Biden or other Democrats. 

The evidence that fraud occurred in 2024 exists when you recognize that Trump includes acts he thinks unfairly rigged the election against him as fraud. Remember, weak evidence is not the same as no evidence. Some fraud occurs in all elections. He cites biased reporting in the major news outlets, the suppression of the story on Hunter Biden's laptop, Zurkerbucks used to get public officials to increase voting in areas that tend to vote for Democrats, and late changes in voting procedures as tactics that rigged the election against him. 

An honest account could note that no credible evidence that substantial fraud occurred or that sufficient fraud occurred to affect the outcome of the Presidential election. The honest account could also note that Trump's claims that the election was rigged have some merit.

The double standard occurs when they do not add the phrase when Biden makes a claim. Here are a few of possible examples.

1. Biden claims, without evidence, that the story about Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation.
2. Biden claims, without evidence, that inflation was 9% when he came into office. (This claim is veritably false, not simple without evidence.)
3. Biden claims, without evidence, that Trump is an existential threat to democracy.

I realize that an honest account could note that 50ish national security officials signed a letter saying the laptop had all of the earmarks of Russian disinformation. The account could continue by noting that the letter was organized by Blinken, then working for the Biden campaign, and that the FBI had the laptop and knew it was authentic.

An honest account could note that inflation was below 9% when Biden came into office, rose to a high of 9%, and then fell.

An honest account could note that Trump sought to stop the certification of Biden's victory and failed to quell quickly the riot on January 6. To many people, this may be strong evidence that he is an existential threat to democracy. However, his actions and the actions of the majority of the rioters are consistent with democracy. They were attempts to implement what Trump and his followers thought was the will of the people as expressed in the results of the election; not attempts to implement their own will. Most of the rioters thought that Trump has won the election; they wanted the certification to follow the will of the people. Asking a Secretary of State to double check for votes is also consistent with following the will of the people.