Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose shot back at the senator, saying the claim implies sinister and deliberate efforts by the Trump administration to work with Russia as it meddles. The Dispatch's Public Affairs team offers some context to the dispute.

Before it gets too far in the rearview mirror, let's do a quick fact check on whether Sen. Sherrod Brown's rhetoric got ahead of the facts when he criticized President Donald Trump for “trying to cheat” in the 2020 election.

Bottom line: The Ohio Democrat's statement Feb. 25 went too far.

Get the news delivered to your inbox: Sign up for our politics newsletter

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, cut to the nub of the issue in a Facebook post:

“By claiming the president is 'trying to cheat' to win the election, Senator Brown allows for the misguided belief that the president's campaign is intentionally engaging in a sinister effort to manipulate the administration of the election.”

After initial news reports said that U.S. intelligence officials believe that Russian operatives are trying to help re-elect Trump (as well as aid Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries), some follow-up stories characterized the current Russian interference more generally.

The intelligence agencies had unanimously concluded that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump, the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee found.

But, so far, nothing factual has emerged to suggest that Trump is an active or even willing participant in the Russians' 2020 efforts.

Here's how this claim developed: In Brown's weekly conference call with reporters, The Dispatch's Rick Rouan asked about the letter the Ohioan and two other senators sent asking the Trump administration to slap sanctions on Russia for the 2020 meddling.

In his response, Brown referred to Trump, saying, “It's clear that the Russians were involved in 2016 on behalf of this president. It's clear the president did something Richard Nixon never did, and that is try to solicit a bribe from the Ukrainians to help his campaign. It's clear that the president's relationship with Putin is, is — let's just say untoward — is questionable for whatever reasons.

“And we know from intelligence stories already that the president is trying to cheat in 2020, that the Russians are trying to help the president again.”

Rouan challenged Brown's cheating assertion, noting that there was no report of intelligence officials saying Trump actually is coordinating with the Russians.

The senator replied, “I think the evidence continues to point in that direction. What does 'work with' mean?

“He encourages them. He says things. He defends them. He criticizes his own intelligence officials. That strikes me as working with them, by most measures.”

Brown also could have cited Trump's open solicitation of Russia to find Hillary Clinton's emails in 2016, and his expressed desire last year to have Ukraine and China dig into the background of Democratic rival Joe Biden's family.

But Brown himself cited “evidence,” not proof or established facts. Perhaps it's a fine line to some, but “cheating” is defined as to “act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.”

As numerous fact-checkers have established in recent years, Trump's relationship with the truth is often sketchy. But on this particular claim, Brown doesn't have the goods.

As Ohio's chief elections officer, LaRose is especially sensitive about allegations regarding how an election is carried out, calling out fellow Republicans, too. Thus, his main problem with Brown's assertion is that it could be interpreted as a claim that Trump is trying to game the voting system.

LaRose went on to say, “Loose talk about fraud, as well as allegations of attempts to 'cheat' or to 'steal an election,' are never acceptable without hard evidence. Thousands of dedicated Ohioans work each election season to ensure the sanctity of each and every vote – and subverting their dedication to score political points is a step too far.”

Viewed in context, that does not seem to be the intent of Brown, who was secretary of state back in the 1980s, meaning that perhaps LaRose also went a step too far.

drowland@dispatch.com

@darreldrowland