Uh-Oh: Scientists Find “Persuasive Evidence” Of Vote Hacking, Demand Clinton Recount In the 3 States Most Important to Trump’s Victory
Between the so-called ‘Hursti Hack’, questions over Soros-linked voting machines, some peculiarities in Texas, and the media furor over Trump’s democracy-threatening questioning of the election outcome; it is perhaps ironic that, after being soundly beaten across the vast majority of counties in America, NY Mag reports, a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers are urging the Clinton campaign to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump after allegedly finding “persuasive evidence” of vote hacking.
The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.
New York Magazine reports that sources confirmed that the activists held a conference call last Thursday with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case…
The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.
Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.
Notably, however, it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review – especially, as New York Magazine so gleefully points out, in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
As a reminder, via MishTalk.com, Geographically speaking, Trump won at least 80% of the Nation.
The only states Hillary carried are Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Trump won every county in Oklahoma and West Virginia. Trump won all but one county in Wyoming, and Kansas. Trump won all but two counties in North Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee, Utah, and Nebraska.
Nearly the entire state of Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, etc., went for Trump.
Geographically speaking, except for big cities and a few isolated areas, the country cannot stand Hillary.
So the big question is – could she win? Well the answer is complicated…
According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call.
It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College.
There is also the complicating factor of “faithless electors,” or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.
The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. NYMag notes that according to one of the activists, the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it’s Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday.
Of course, should this happen, we can only imagine what carnage it would cause to global financial markets as the Trump Bump hope fades into the Clinton crash.
Finally, it appears that far from a frivolous flight of fancy, Huma Abedin’s sister, Heba Abedin, has been encouraging her Facebook followers to call the Justice Department to have vote in key states audited.
None other than Nate Silver is now chiming in on these ‘scientists’ claims…
Good chance there'll be a whole cottage industry of "STATISTICS PROFESSOR PROVES ELECTION RIGGED" posts at HuffPost, etc., though.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
Which is also wonderfully ironic, though he does point out one glaring hole in their ‘hacking theory’…