So if the president says "The sun won't rise tomorrow", we can't reject that statement out of hand?

You'd be wise too, but you wouldn't be rejecting it empirically.

"Empirical" does not mean exclusively present observation. It includes reacting to observed patterns a priori, for example.

...observed patterns a priori?

As in a priori observations can instruct an empirical conclusion.

Only ex post...

You wait long enough and then check whether the prediction was true? If not, the prediction was false.

Easy. A "statement" can't be wrong, but a "prediction" of the future must be built on a predictive model that has worked in the past, and the model must be fed parameters rooted in reality. Failing that, it is wrong.

If Trump's statement about fraud is not predictive, then it is fiction and meaningless instead of wrong.

If all policitians' twitter accounts required that all their statements submitted a "predictive model" to reinforce their tweet - then at least your argument would make logical sense.

In this case, it just seems like Twitter disagrees with him. They aren't really arguing facts.

I did not mention Twitter's actions. They are not relevant for my analysis.

Having said that, the comparative fairness argument supports a status quo that rewards bombastic discourse, at the expense of truthfulness. We now know it is socially pernicious.

Tomorrow gravity is going to reverse and fling you into the sun.

If gravity were reversed you would actually be flung away from the sun. I ask you to please be correct and factual at all times. This is a discussion on the internet after all.

I see you understand.

I don't know what that even means.

We're talking about facts established by research, indicating they have occurred in the past. I don't know what you're talking about.