What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else about the article. This duplicitous approach to discussion doesn't really work for you.
*sigh*
This is just you playing silly semantic games again, like with the "President Elect" thing.
I mean, technically you're right but in a completely pointless way.
Trump's claim is not simply that fraud occurred but that
widespread fraud occurred that stole the election from him.
That's what Barr is calling bullshit on.
You're just excitedly saying "Aha! But he didn't say there was
no fraud". Well what of it? Some low level of fraud occurs in every election.
But unless someone can show* that
widespread fraud has occurred in 2020, the sort that could actually change the result, then so what?
*and by "show" I don't mean ALL CAPS TWEETS or witnesses whose ridiculous claims aren't getting anywhere in court.
These farcical hearings where no-one is under oath and can thus claim what they like are meaningless.