Computer scientist J. Alex Halderman urged Hillary Clinton’s camp to pursue a recount in three swing states on the basis of a discrepancy he claimed to have found in the paper ballot results, which purportedly signaled a potential hacking attempt on a the voting machines, Hot Air reported. There’s just one huge problem — Halderman himself admitted he doesn’t believe that happened, not even by the Russian boogeyman.
Halderman laid out a potential scenario that showed how he claimed a hack on voter systems could occur and that the Russians are sophisticated enough to do it in a post at Medium.
First, he said that he might have dismissed the idea years ago, but now he finds it more plausible:
Could anyone be brazen enough to try such an attack? A few years ago, I might have said that sounds like science fiction, but 2016 has seen unprecedented cyberattacks aimed at interfering with the election…Russia has sophisticated cyber-offensive capabilities, and has shown a willingness to use them to hack elections.
However, he then backed away from his own “plausible” theory. As Hot Air noted, the emphasis in bold occurred in the original piece :
Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked…The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.
Despite the fact that he believes it was unlikely that there was interference, he still urged an investigation:
Examining the physical evidence in these states — even if it finds nothing amiss — will help allay doubt and give voters justified confidence that the results are accurate. It will also set a precedent for routinely examining paper ballots, which will provide an important deterrent against cyberattacks on future elections. Recounting the ballots now can only lead to strengthened electoral integrity, but the window for candidates to act is closing fast.
This is exactly what the left does – they throw allegations/lies/smears against the wall with reckless abandon just to see what they can get to stick.
Remember the left’s reaction to Trump’s assertion that he would not just accept the election results if he lost, presumably if he believed something to be amiss? Gee, that’s what what the left is doing here based on something that Halderman said was “unlikely” as opposed to the evidence Trump based his claims on.
Halderman apparently thinks it important to spend the time and money to investigate something he himself admitted was unlikely. Not only that, but as Hot Air pointed out and as Halderman is surely well aware, the investigation would do the opposite of what he suggested in his piece.
The investigation would serve to cast doubt over the results unnecessarily, not “allay doubt” as Halderman asserted in his article.
Halderman surely knows this because, as Hot Air noted:
Something doesn’t add up here and it’s not the vote tallies in Wisconsin. Halderman has laid out a big conspiracy theory about Russians stealing our election, but now that it is public he claims he doesn’t believe it happened? Did he tell the Clinton camp this was just a remote possibility? His interest in “electoral integrity” would be more convincing if he had come out with this publicly first instead of going to the Clinton camp (with lawyers) to make the argument.