Replies

First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia. Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.
Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.
Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.

THIS IS GOING TO BE WAR!

combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result

This continued use of the word "hacked" is an insult to readers' intelligence. Voting machines aren't connected to the internet, thus aren't vulnerable to hacking.

But let's agree it's possible to rig voting machines through installation of manipulated software. And let's say the Russkies wanted to rig the machines. Wouldn't they have to tamper with the software of each and every machine? Sounds awfully labor-intensive. Hard to mess up enough machines to make a difference.

I do hope this whole recount ploy as a measure to unseat Trump will fail in the same way as our concerns did about the nomination being stolen during a brokered convention. The concerns were valid, but I’m hoping that having so many people aware of it will cause the cockroaches to scurry away.

It is true that George Soros and his minions are pushing for CWII. I hope we are wise enough as a nation to resist that somehow.