想想任何一个输了的人都有motive喊作弊了。判断是否真正有作弊要看证据，而不是看是谁喊的，声音大不大， 或者想要什么结果 - 没有我想要的结果，那就一定有人作弊。这个逻辑行不通的。
如果你不能亲自去取证，就要找可以信得过的source。这时候也不能因为谁说的是你想相信的，就是是真的。要看merit。你不相信CNN有情可原, 但是你怎么知道路德可以相信呢？其实最能信得过source就是法官了。因为所有证据都需要呈给法官，而且双方律师，证人都给与所有合法的机会说话。我们看看法官怎怎么说。这里有川普递交的over 50 lawsuits。结果是大部分是withdrawl or denied. 这个时候就要再想一想，如果真的有实锤证据，为什么一个官司都赢不了呢？最合理的解释就是没有什么实锤证据。
Trump's election fight includes over 50 lawsuits. It's not going well.
"Calling an election unfair does not make it so," one ruling said.
Nov. 23, 2020, 8:06 AM CST / Updated Dec. 10, 2020, 11:42 AM CST By Pete Williams and Nicole Via y Rada
President Donald Trump and other Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits across the country in an attempt to contest the election results.
Most of them have been shot down or withdrawn, and no court has found even a single instance of fraud. Of at least 56 cases to have been filed, including some not directly involving Trump but which could nonetheless affect his standing, at least 46 have been denied, dismissed, settled or withdrawn.
Trump has aggressively ramped up his allegations of election fraud in the weeks since his projected loss, tweeting dozens of debunked theories. His continued refusal to concede to President-election Joe Biden has also deeply hampered the transition process, leaving Biden in the dark on crucial Covid-19 and national security issues.
Here is where things stand as of Dec. 11.
3rd U.S. Court of Appeals: In Bognet v. Boockvar, Republicans argued that the extended mail-in ballot deadline challenged the constitution.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Barnette v. Lawrence, the GOP lawsuit claimed that Montgomery County wrongly allowed mail-in voters the chance to cure ballots.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign argued that there was insufficient access by observers.
Status: Denied. The Trump campaign later admitted that there were a "nonzero number of people in the room" observing the vote count, including some affiliated with the campaign. Judge Paul S. Diamond shot back, "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?"
U.S. District Court, Middle District: In Pirkle v. Wolf, four voter plaintiffs generalized allegations of fraud, based on complaints issued by third parties.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In response to the Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots, Republicans claim that Philadelphia did not give election observers enough access.
Status: Denied. The court reversed the petition allowing an appeal. The court rejected the Trump campaign's claim that mail-in ballots with minor flaws must be rejected.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Hamm v. Boockvar, Republicans claimed that the state wrongly allowed voters to cast provisional ballots to cure invalid mail ballots.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: Northampton Republicans challenged notifications of votes that were canceled during prescreening.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Trump v. Boockvar, the campaign challenged the three-day deadline extension given to mail-in voters missing identification to supply proof of identification.
Status: Relief granted. The court found that the secretary of state had no authority to provide an extension. The secretary of state's office has said the total number of votes is probably fewer than 100 statewide.
Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County: Both the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign challenged over 2,000 mail-in ballots.
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas: In Trump v. Montgomery County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign and the RNC challenged about 600 mail-in ballots that lacked voters' addresses.
U.S. Supreme Court: In Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, Republicans challenged the extended mail-in ballot deadline.
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: In Trump v. Boockvar, the campaign is arguing that different provisional ballot practices violate equal protection.
Status: Active. A federal judge on Saturday dismissed the suit in a scathing opinion: "This claim, like Frankenstein's Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together," Judge Matthew Brann wrote. The Trump campaign appealed the ruling earlier this week, but their appeal was denied on Friday. The ruling states that "calling an election unfair does not make it so."
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: The Trump campaign appealed a Philadelphia County Board of Elections decision to count five different categories of mail-in and absentee ballots.
Status: Active. The court is reviewing whether the state election code allows curing some mail-in ballots by casting provisional ballots.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections, Nicole Ziccarelli, a GOP legislative candidate, challenged 2,349 undated mail-in ballots.
Court of Common Pleas for Westmoreland County: Ziccarelli is also challenging a small number of provisional ballots.
Status: Relief granted.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In Kelly v. Pennsylvania, a group of Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, claimed that the state's no-excuse mail ballot law violates the state constitution. They sought an order blocking certification of most mail-in votes or that directs the state Assembly to choose the presidential electors.
Status: Denied. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' appeal.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: Metcalfe v. Wolf, repeats claims of voter fraud, alleging that thousands of illegal ballots were cast and that drop boxes for ballots were improperly allowed.
U.S. Supreme Court: In Texas v. Pennsylvania et al., the state of Texas filed suit against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin alleging that fraud and mistakes damaged the presidential election in those states.
Status: Active. An amici curiae brief was filed to represent Missouri and 16 other states to support the plaintiff's motion. As of Friday, 126 congressional Republicans, including House Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., have signed on to a brief asking that the Electoral College selects a candidate for president by "counting only legal votes." (McCarthy has declined to answer questions from reporters about whether he supports Texas' effort.)
Trump lawsuit fails to overturn Pennsylvania election results
NOV. 22, 202002:07
U.S. District Court, Western District: In Johnson/Stoddard v. Benson, two Trump supporters made generalized allegations of voter fraud.
Michigan Supreme Court: In Johnson v. Benson, two Trump supporters made generalized allegations of voter fraud.
Status: Denied. In a 4-3 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court denied relief.
U.S. District Court, Western District: In Trump v. Benson, the campaign claimed that Wayne County denied election challengers proper access to watch election workers handle ballots.
Wayne County Circuit Court: In Constantino v. Detroit, two Republican poll challengers alleged irregularities in the vote at the TCF Center.
Wayne County Circuit Court: In Stoddard v. Detroit, the plaintiffs claimed that ballots were improperly duplicated by Democratic Party inspectors.
Michigan Court of Claims: In Trump v. Benson, the campaign sought to have more poll observers watch the vote count.
Status: Denied. The plaintiffs appealed to the appellate court. Judge Cynthia D. Stephens said in her opinion that the case was "inadmissible hearsay within hearsay." "I heard someone else say something," Michigan Judge Cynthia Stephens said Thursday, summing up an affidavit submitted by the Trump campaign. "Tell me how that is not hearsay. Come on now!"
U.S. District Court, Western District: In Bally v. Whitmer, a group of voters disputed election results in three counties based on allegations of voting irregularities and fraud.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In King v. Whitmer, a group of Michigan Republicans asked a federal judge to reverse Biden's victory in Michigan, an outcome that was formally certified earlier this week.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Langenhorst v. Pecore, Republicans made generalized allegations of voter fraud that relied on third-party accounts.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Election Commission, a conservative group claims that the five cities of Kenosha, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee and Racine illegally accepted grants from Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerburg to improve election systems. They also claim that officials failed to get voter identification for some mail-in ballots.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell is alleging fraud with voting machines.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Trump v. Evers, the Trump campaign seeks to invalidate mail ballots it claims were improperly included during the canvas in Milwaukee and Dane counties.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Mueller v. Wisconsin, the lawsuit claims drop boxes were placed without proper authority and seeks nullification of any ballots placed in them. It accuses Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of leading a propaganda campaign to encourage their use, part of a "treacherous operation to interfere with the presidential election."
U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Trump campaign claims that state election officials made ballots and drop boxes available in a manner not allowed by the state legislature.
Maricopa County Superior Court: In Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes, the Republicans sought a hand recount of the ballots cast in Maricopa County by precinct. The GOP does not allege fraud, but it claims that the audit of votes did not meet state law.
Maricopa County Superior Court: In Trump v. Hobbs, the Trump campaign claimed that using Sharpies to fill in mail-in ballots caused an overvote and invalidated ballots.
Superior Court for the State of Arizona: In Ward v. Jackson, Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona Republican Party and a Trump elector, alleges misconduct in the elections administration and seeks that the vote certification by Gov. Doug Ducey be annulled.
U.S. District Court: In Bowyer v. Ducey, involves Texas lawyer Sidney Powell and alleges "massive election fraud" involving Dominion voting systems. These claims are similar to those in other lawsuits.
Superior Court for the State of Arizona: In Stevenson v. Ducey, the plaintiffs contested the election results.
Status: Dismissed voluntarily.
Arizona Superior Court: In Burk v. Ducey, the plaintifs claim illegal ballots were counted in the vote totals, while attacking the use of Dominion voting machines.
Clark County District Court: In Election Integrity Project v. Nevada, the plaintiffs claimed that Nevada's vote-by-mail structure is unconstitutional. The suit was filed in September.
1st Judicial District Court, Carson City: In Law v. Whitmer, Trump's six electors claimed irregularities, including the improper use of scanning machines to verify signatures.
U.S. District Court: In Stokke v. Cegavske, the plaintiffs sought to stop the use of automated signature matching in Clark County.
Nevada Supreme Court: In Kraus v. Cegavske, the Trump campaign, the Nevada GOP and a Republican voter and count-watcher named Fred Kraus sued to stop the use of automated signature matching.
Status: Dismissed. The parties reached an agreement to allow for more observers.
Clark County District Court: In Becker v. Gloria, April Becker, a state Senate candidate, challenged the use of automated systems to match mail-in ballot signatures and the mailing of ballots to all registered voters.
Clark County District Court: In Marchant v. Gloria, Jim Marchant, a congressional candidate, challenged the use of automated systems for signature-matching and for mailing ballots to all registered voters.
Clark County District Court: In Rodimer v. Gloria, Daniel Rodimer, a state legislative candidate, challenged the use of automated systems for signature-matching and mailing ballots to all registered voters.
U.S. District Court, Northern District: In Wood v. Raffensperger, an Atlanta lawyer and Trump supporter sought an injunction to prevent a statewide canvass, arguing that a consent decree wrongly imposes an invalid procedure to verify voter signatures.
U.S. District Court, Northern Division: Pearson v. Kemp makes many of the claims alleged by Texas lawyer Sidney Powell, including that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems allowed Democratic officials to fraudulently add votes for Biden.
Status: Dismissed. The plaintiffs intend to appeal.
Fulton County Superior Court: In Wood v. Raffensberger, a conservative group is behind a lawsuit claiming that thousands of illegal votes were counted and that funds contributed by Mark Zuckerberg tainted the election. The suit seeks to invalidate the presidential election results.
Fulton County Superior Court: In Boland v. Raffensperger, the plaintiff claims more than 20,000 ballots were cast by non-residents and that counties did not properly screen mail ballot signatures. Seeks an audit or, if none is granted, decertification of the election results.
U.S. District Court, Southern District: In Brooks v. Mahoney, four Republican voters claimed that a voting machine software glitch caused a miscounting of votes.
Chatham County Superior Court: The Georgia Republican Party and the Trump campaign sought a reminder that mail-in ballots arriving late would not be counted.
Fulton County Superior Court: Boland v. Raffensperger claims more than 20,000 ballots were cast by non-residents and that counties did not properly screen mail ballot signatures. The complaint seeks an audit or, if none is granted, decertification of the election results.
Fulton County Superior Court: In Trump v. Raffensperger, the Trump campaign and a Trump electorclaim thousand of ballots were cast by ineligible voters.
Minnesota Supreme Court: In Kistner v. Simon, several Republican candidates make generalized claims of voting irregularities. The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday and sought to block the state's certification of votes until an audit of the returns could be completed.
2020 ELECTIONMcConnell congratulates Biden on his victory as more Republicans abandon Trump's fight
2020 ELECTIONState Department to receive first Covid-19 vaccines this week
Minnesota District Court, 2nd Judicial District: In Quist v. Simon, the plaintiffs claim the secretary of state created procedural changes that made the ballot counting process "overly broad, arbitrary, disparate and ad hoc."
Minnesota District Court, 2nd Judicial District: In Jensen v. Simon, the plaintiffs seek to contest election results under the claim that invalid votes were counted.
天呐，竟然有人还会去看NBC news？FFFFFake news nbc ， Geeeez