[nicollo]

The way I read this ruling is that if Trump can prove 81,001 fraudulent votes, he wins:

The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory.

[Alter Kaker]

The way I read this ruling is that if Trump can prove 81,001 fraudulent votes, he wins:

If he had argued that 81,000 votes were counted fraudulently he could have won this case in Pennsylvania, but he didn't argue that ANY votes were fraudulent. In fact he made clear he wasn't alleging any fraud.

If he had won this case in Pennsylvania, he would still have lost the election if none of the other states switch. However at this point it seems too late to bring forward factual allegations of fraud - and his campaign is certainly not doing so. Not in Pennsylvania, not anywhere. There's what Rudy and Jenna Ellis are saying to the press and on Twitter, but there's an entirely different set of facts playing out in court.

[Jim Noble]

The way I read this ruling is that if Trump can prove 81,001 fraudulent votes

And if your Aunt had balls, she's be your Uncle.

What you state is impossible to prove. Not "prove" in the sense that you or I believe it.

I mean, prove by a preponderance of the evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction to the satisfaction of a panel of judges expert in law and in the Constitution.

That is just not going to happen, and it is shameful to exploit people's hopes, and it's triply shameful to be fundraising off of it.