Scott Adams this morning applied his detection skills to the AZ audit and suggested that nothing of any consequence would be found. His reasoning was that had anything turned up, it would have been leaked to the press and published.
Ordinarily, this might mean something but let me respectfully disagree. The Dems in AZ and other states are filing lawsuits and issuing press releases demanding that the audit be stopped for one reason or another, but centering on a claim that the investigation is an attack on "our democracy". By "our democracy" I assume they mean their win in the Maricopa vote count. Had they lost, it would be attributed to voter suppression or some such.
I'm sure that at least some information has leaked out even if it's only someones speculation as to the direction the audit is heading. The people running the audit are bound by an NDA forbidding them from releasing partial results or progress reports. This is likely to allow the Dems more time to get the results legally buried before they get generally released. The Dems know what is to be found and the efforts they're putting into quashing that information suggest to me that it must be pretty good.
The media is pretty solidly part of the DNC and if word got out that say 5% of the ballots (210,000) seemed to have something obviously wrong with them and their removal would change the outcome of the election (winning margin 10,500 statewide), they would certainly have NO interest in publishing that.
My contention is that if no leaks have been published, it's not because there were no leaks.