The statement, "There is no evidence…." of [file in the blank] includes the assumption that there IS evidence of the opposite.

When an obnoxious, interrupting Welker, or Lesley Stahl, for instance, states aggressively, as they always do, that there is is "no evidence" that election outcomes were tampered with, ask on what FACTS/evidence is SHE is basing her implied/assumed premise that the elections were not tampered with?

Blind faith / trust / the fear that if there is any suggestion of a hint that election processes are corrupt, then chaos and anarchy ensues? And we can't have the evil we don't know, so stick to the evil we know? At least the fat cats (including "journalists") that thrive in the corrosive environment are fine with denying the corruption, decay, and decline, and blocking any attempt to shine a light on it, because "they have theirs" under the current system and they don't know what they will have, or Heaven forbid, be actually held accountable for under a cleaned up, transparent, and authenic system.

In the public version-facing version of Watergate, wasn't it crack journalists, fed info by insider whistle-blowers / leakers, who were the "heroes" who "got the evidence" to blow Watergate open?

Where are the heroic journalists in main stream media today - on election fraud? They shut it down and shame and blame and demonize and discredit any suggestion of it.

That is the opposite of the true calling of that profession.

They are lacking in any curiosity, let along actual investigative journalism chops.

So, all whonask "where is the evidence?"

You are challenged to get the evidence on the unspoken part of the position you are championing, i.e., that there is no corruption unless proven otherwise.

Prove it!