A number of election fraud deniers, including the editors of The Wall Street Journal, have been committing serial cognitive dissonance.  In a series of editorials, the Journal's editors have, on the one hand, claimed there is "no evidence" of massive voter fraud and that everyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election should be quiet and stop indulging in the "big lie."  On the other hand, they have admitted that there were numerous irregularities that need to be addressed, in particular the fact that in state after state, including all the crucial swing states, the rules were changed at the behest of the Democrats without the approval of the state legislatures.  Bypassing the legislatures is illegal and unconstitutional.  By what logic is the conduct of an election by illegal rules not massive election fraud?

An analogy may be helpful.  Suppose the home team got together with the referees before a game and agreed to change the rules without NFL approval.  They could agree, for example, that the home team would get five downs to gain ten yards, that each of their punts would automatically net sixty yards, that the home team would receive unlimited replay challenges, and that the time clock would be managed by the home team.  If despite such changes the home team should somehow happen to be behind, they could agree that the referees would blow the whistle, throw the pause flag, and award the home team just enough extra points to ensure victory.

If the visitors objected, by what logic could or should they be told to shut up because there is "no evidence" of massive football fraud?