On December 12, the useless Wisconsin recount  confirmed what we all knew already: Trump won Wisconsin.

On December 9, the Michigan federal court dismissed Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's suit for a recount in Michigan.

On December 12, as expected, the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Stein's suit to order a statewide recount. 

Stein had filed suit in federal court after she withdrew her Pennsylvania state court suit because the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had ordered her to post a one-million-dollar bond.  Stein did not want to spend the money on the bond for what her lawyers knew was a losing case, so she tried in federal court instead.

The best part of Judge Diamond's opinion was the total rejection of Stein's "expert witness," who submitted an affidavit that the voting machines could be hacked because the emails of the DNC and John Podesta had been hacked.  It is obvious that the emails are on the internet, while the Pennsylvania voting machines are not on the internet, so hacking would be impossible.  Rejecting this absurd argument as "irrational," Judge Diamond stated:

Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised[.] ... Moreover, plaintiffs' lack of standing, the likely absence of federal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs' unexplained, highly prejudicial delay in seeking a recount are all fatal to their claims for immediate relief.

Dr. Stein has repeatedly stated that she has sought a Pennsylvania recount to ensure that every vote counts[.] ... Granting her later-than-last-minute request for relief, however, could well ensure that no Pennsylvania vote counts. Such a result would be both outrageous and completely unnecessary; as I have found, suspicion of a 'hacked' Pennsylvania election borders on the irrational.

Since the Democrats knew that Trump would win the recount in Wisconsin, and the lawsuits for a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania would fail, they have switched their attack on Trump to blame the Russians for "interference."

At best, the Russians, or whoever did the hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, provided information to the American voters that the MSM and Hillary failed to provide: the documentation that proves that Hillay and Obama lied and that Hillary sold access to the State Department.  Moreover, if Hilary and Obama had not lied, and had Hillary not sold access to the State Department, then there would be no emails to hack and leak.

The charge that the Russians, or anyone else, interfered with the election to help Trump is as irrational as Stein's argument that the voting machines could have been hacked by the Russians because the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked.

How can there be interference with an election by providing truthful information about a candidate?

Harry Reid admittedly lied in 2012 that Romney had not paid his taxes for ten years.  Hillary and Obama lied in 2012 that a video caused the Benghazi attack.  All three lied to help Obama win.  Is that interference?