You are still trying to convince me. So that must mean that I am asking the wrong questions. This is not about convincing me, this is about the processes in your mind.
Which sources do you use and which ones do you not use to 'defend' your position? What happens in your brain when you read that
William Barr of all people stated: "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in this election."
Does your brain want to find out why he is saying that or does your brain look for ways to fit it into the position it has taken about this election?
I guess it is the latter. You have already made up your mind: you do not only think this election was rigged, you also feel it. You feel it with the whole of your being. And the more arguments you are having on the web or in real life, the more you will be convinced that you must be right. Barr stating that he found no evidence does not fit in your world view. So you will find a way to throw that fact out.
Most likely route will be the route that Trump has taken: 'Barr cum suis did not do anything.' Imagine that, one of the most hardline Trump loyalists is not able to do anything with all the evidence Giuliani sais he has. Is that not weird? And all the Trump voters in the Justice Department who all did nothing with that evidence? What happens when you think about that?
Also, Giuliani stated: "The president has seen more than enough evidence that this was a
massive fraud all over the country. We are going to prove it. We're going to prove it to the state legislatures, we're going to prove it to the
court.". What happens if you want to include that into your world view? You say he was not in court to talk about fraud. Why not? He said he was going to prove fraud in court, yet he did not prove it. What is going on in your brain if you process this: are you actively trying to disprove your point of view, or are you looking to get confirmation on your bias? Note that it is very human to do the latter.
And again, please do not try to convince me. You don't need to convince me. This is not about what I consider to be 'truth'. This is about the processes that go on in your brain. The thoughts and though processes of someone who is kind enough to conversate with a total stranger on the internet. What you do to reach a conclusion and defend that conclusion is what is interesting.