Most (or possibly all) of what's coming from the Trump side is unproven assertions. My latest reference for this is yesterday's Select Committee hearing's live sworn testimony about what happened.
By now you will have heard about the 60 court cases he lost about the election. I found one of them documented online (regarding Arizona -- I think -- it's been many months and I don't have it handy now -- if it wasn't Arizona then it would have been Nevada) -- it was a long judicially-signed court document and I posted a link to it at least once to OPP, back when I found it) and from it I was able to get an idea of the detailed look that the court did about the case. Also online, casually, I've looked at a few assertions by Trump supporters about supposed fraud, and I've gotten an idea, from looking at them, of the general quality that they seem to be (not much good). After a while one learns to not keep wasting time on them.
It's really easy to assert things, but much harder to prove them. It's even easier to make false assertions than it is to make true assertions, because for every true fact there are a multitude of false ones, and to find a true one to assert, one has to either know something or be lucky.
False assertions get passed around a lot. One gets posted, and then reposted many times. It takes time, effort, and favorable circumstances, and sometimes requires background knowledge or education, to be able to _prove_ or _disprove_ a thing (or, sometimes, to understand its significance or lack thereof).
Moreover, once accomplished, then, a careful, responsible proof takes a lot more patience to read and understand, than does a frivolously-made assertion!
By way of example, regarding false assertions being passed around a lot: A year or two ago, on social media, I was able to debunk two posts that a friend made. It went like this:
In one post, there was a video almost a half hour long, with captions. The key sentence in it was the opposite in the caption from what it was in the sound. The whole point of it turned out to be false thereby. In the other post, there was a pointer to a newspaper article which was reporting on what a government paper had said. I looked up the government paper and found that it did not say what was reported. And then:
I reported my two careful debunkings to the poster, including telling her how I did them so that she could easily (and more quickly) trace my steps and see for herself what went wrong in what she was posting about.
But she didn't care and just kept posting more stuff (which appears to be of about the same poor quality as the ones I debunked).
That illustrates what people's typical information environment is. It's a lot more careless asserting than it is careful proving. And, as I said, once a false thing is posted, it gets passed around a lot, so its effect gets multiplied.
In the case of the 2020 presidential election, Trump makes a lot of careless assertions, and every time one is shown to be false, he simply shifts to another one. There's no end to the variety of false assertions he can (and does) make up. This situation has been described rather well, and authoritatively, in the sworn testimony (much of which has been in person, televised live in the hearings) of the Jan. 6 Select Committee hearings.
By the way, since I'm referring to those hearings, I want to also refer to why there aren't Trump supporters on the committee. It's because the House minority (Republican) leader decided (after his first two nominees or suggested people were rejected) to boycott the hearings and not nominate anyone else to be on the committee. (Trump is now lamenting that that boycotting decision was made by that Republican leader.). My reference about this situation is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-republicans.html Personally I'm glad it turned out that way because now I and many others can finally hear a connected true relevant narrative supported by sworn witnesses, uninterrupted by what I would nicely call "something else".
However, I think it would be even more interesting if Mr. "equal time" Trump would take the witness stand _himself_ and give sworn testimony live, like several of these other officials have been doing (even, in some cases, while they're being stalked, harrassed, and threatened with death). Trump talks enough, one might think he has something important to say. But I gather that Trump giving sworn testimony in these hearings is the last thing his close supporters would want to happen. It's so unthinkable that one very rarely hears the idea even mentioned.
Most (or possibly all) of what's coming from the T... (