Certainly not tweeted opinions that started before the elections were actually held.
I would start with actual evidence. But not evidence that is based on a narrative or opinion - evidence that meets or exceeds legal standards. That is...
Admissible
This is the most basic rule and a measure of evidence validity and importance. The evidence must be preserved and gathered in such a way that it can be used in court or elsewhere. Many errors can be made that could cause a judge to rule a piece of evidence as inadmissible. For example, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible.
Authentic
The evidence must be tied to the incident in a relevant way to prove something. The forensic examiner must be accountable for the origin of the evidence.
Complete
When evidence is presented, it must be clear and complete and should reflect the whole story. It is not enough to collect evidence that just shows one perspective of the incident. Presenting incomplete evidence is more dangerous than not providing any evidence at all as it could lead to a different judgment.
Reliable
Evidence collected from the device must be reliable. This depends on the tools and methodology used. The techniques used and evidence collected must not cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. If the examiner used some techniques that cannot be reproduced, the evidence is not considered unless they were directed to do so. This would include possible destructive methods such as chip-off extraction.
Believable
A forensic examiner must be able to explain, with clarity and conciseness, what processes they used and the way the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The evidence presented by the examiner must be clear, easy to understand, and believable by jury.
There is a reason why Trumps screeches of "evidence of election fraud" never made it past the court of public opinion and into the court of law. None of it met the legal standard, certainly not to a degree or volume to constitute widespread voter fraud that would change the course of a general election.
Sadly, the Trumpers glommed onto Donny's twitter rants of "fraud" without ever stopping to consider why it never consisted of more than innuendo, thinly constructed narratives of incomplete video or other bits of hearsay. It all fell apart when held up to scrutiny, instead of questioning why - they bought into a national, multi-state, multi judge, multi jurisdiction legal conspiracy to screw donny. But that didn't matter because he was telling his supporters what they wanted to hear, that they were right, and he was the victim.
