Folks, part of keeping the discourse on track is to eventually ignore flat out false claims (like 100% objectively false) such as "there is no evidence" when they are repeated over and over.
Those with the ability and desire to have even the most slightly of nuanced discussions can say "there's questionable evidence" or that "the evidence we have doesn't PROVE anything" but to say there is NO evidence means someone literally does not understand the definition of the word, or is purposefully trying to avoid, evade, confuse and misdirect from the substantive discussion. Evidence includes tweets, email chains, trumps comments from the podium, Bannon's insinuations per what we have learned today and that minor and oh so easy to overlook (if you are completely clueless or completely disingenuous) evidence that two of Trumps absolute closes inner circle have been indicted, and one has actually turned. We can come up with a crazy fantasy where none of this EVIDENCE implicates Trump or is proof of his guilt, but to say it's not evidence is flat out wrong - be it because someone can't understand, or, more likely, they do understand but won't engage in a legitimate discussion on the matter.
Now, someone is entitled to believe there is no evidence, but such a statement, due to the above, seems pretty clear to come from a vantage point of an unwilingness to discuss this issue in earnest (since I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume we all actually know what evidence is. Perhaps I'm wrong there, dunno). So let's just let them 'believe' that their is "no evidence" (it's a clear irrefutable fact that there is, although we can draw different conclusions from it), or avoid their imo obvious attempts to just muddy the waters.