Here is an analogy. A known quixotic, mentally ill person, with a well documented history of making up tall tales, claims there was a murder in a room. There is no body, no blood anywhere, no signs of struggle, no one is missing, and security footage shows nothing. Is it unreasonable to “assume” (conclude, really), that this is just another of his delusions, and that there was no murder? Because this is what happened here: A known compulsive liar claimed “fraud!”. They then did the recounts, the hand recounts, the audits, the signature verifications, and found no evidence of the claimed fraud. After 2016, where drumpf claimed that there was widespread fraud too, because he lost the popular vote, he started a commission tasked with digging up “the evidence”. That commission was later shut down, because they could not find any evidence either. His own sycophantic DOJ, under his lapdog Bill Barr, said that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Saying then that “there was no fraud” is not an assumption. It is a conclusion drawn from thorough investigations.