Just to capture the "No evidence" mistake being made: people are saying that there's no fraud, and then that there's no evidence of fraud as if those are the same thing.

Saying "No evidence" is itself a mistake, because on any particular question there's evidence both ways. https://twitter.com/CaraLee1221/status/1324753084073996288

Something can be true and there can be very little obvious evidence of it being true (that an unsophisticated contemporary observer would round off to "no evidence").

There are plenty of examples of this; perhaps the most important and well-known one is the allies breaking Axis codes in WWII. The allies were very careful to minimize the amount of evidence that got through to Axis, even allowing cities to be bombed in order to keep the secret.

#RationalityIsHard

What's actually likely to be true:

- There is some fraud (99.9%)
- There is some evidence of fraud (99%)
- It might be decisive fraud (~5%?)
- It might be proved in a court of law that fraud decided the 2020 election (~0.5%)