How exactly does 1000 cases of fraud over 40 years back up his tweets in any way? The voter fraud argument is a political weapon for voter suppression. Not to mention that mail in ballots are already in existence. Heck, I've used them the past 5 years myself.
It's the proportion. A significant amount of the fraud is in mail-in voting, which means it's significantly less resistant to fraud. Shifting everyone from the more-resistant in-person voting to the less-resistant mail-in voting will result in a sharp uptick in voting fraud.
No, that is not what he said. This is the tweet excerpt:
> "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed."
"substantially fraudulent" is not 0.0000001% of ballots (that's napkin math of ballots since 1980). If mail in ballots are 10x more likely to be used in fraud, then 0.000001% is not either. This is factually false and the "fact checking" was applied as such.
