No Evidence of Hacking of U.S. Voting Machines
December 15 2016 By Abiodun Giwa
People have been reading stories about the likelihiid that the United States presidential election may have been hacked by Russia and favored Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton.
Just as the information gathered steam and people wondered whether it was indeed true whether or not the election was hacked, the New York Times published a very long piece, "The Perfect Weapon: How Russian CyberPower Invaded the U.S", that further sent tongues wagging.
There is not any evidence that the country's voting machines were compromised in anyway. Trump has kicked against the idea that Russia may have done any hacking of his opponents computers to deliberately favor him. His position sets him against the C.I.A and the White House position on the develpoment.
On Thursday, major Republican members of the Congress pushed against earlier information in the blogosphere that there is no truth that the Republican Party in the Congress have thrown their support for investigations into whether the election was hacked or not, and said that the information was politically motivated.There wer reports of disagreement about planned meetings between Congressioanl members and the intelligence community.
The latest statement on the hacking imbroglio from Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, that Russia hacked the Democratic Party, with intrentions to help Trump win the election, against his earlier assertion that China did, made it imperative to make it clear that none of these partisan combatants have proved that voting machines were hacked. The argument that Trump himself asked Russia to hack Clinton to help find missing emails has only helped remind observers of another factor about emails that negatively affetced Clinton.
Many people who have read the New York Times story are saying that they have not been convinced that the U.S. voting machines were hacked during the election, in any of the states of the country. The story says much about the likely hacking of the Democratic Party's computers and from which emails were obtained and vital information passed to Wikileaks for publication.
Curious observers are aware that there may have been compromise of the computers of the Democratic and some of the party's bigwigs for the any publiusher to have access to the amssive information, like the ones Wikileaks published during the elections. But all these have not proved that the U.S. voting machines were hacked.
The elction results themselves from state to state based on Democratic Party and the Republiucan Party's strongholds did not show any deviation from the past, save Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the three battelground states that were won by Trump and made him the winner of the election, based on the electoral map and the 270 winning numbers.
Understandably, the Democratic party was expected to win in Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania, based party's past performances in those states. But the results from the states proved otherwise. And apart from Trump's winning from those three states, he was able to pull through in states like Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio.
It is clear that winning large number of votes in states like New York and California don't give candidates victory in the elections, without winning and getting the 270 winning electoral votes from the battleground states. And the question that was raised over the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin led to Jill Steins' call for recount in those three states.
The Wisconsin recount gave additional votes to Trump. Would there have been any difference to the recount in wisconsin, if recount has taken place in Michigan and Pennsylvania?
Just as the information gathered steam and people wondered whether it was indeed true whether or not the election was hacked, the New York Times published a very long piece, "The Perfect Weapon: How Russian CyberPower Invaded the U.S", that further sent tongues wagging.
There is not any evidence that the country's voting machines were compromised in anyway. Trump has kicked against the idea that Russia may have done any hacking of his opponents computers to deliberately favor him. His position sets him against the C.I.A and the White House position on the develpoment.
On Thursday, major Republican members of the Congress pushed against earlier information in the blogosphere that there is no truth that the Republican Party in the Congress have thrown their support for investigations into whether the election was hacked or not, and said that the information was politically motivated.There wer reports of disagreement about planned meetings between Congressioanl members and the intelligence community.
The latest statement on the hacking imbroglio from Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, that Russia hacked the Democratic Party, with intrentions to help Trump win the election, against his earlier assertion that China did, made it imperative to make it clear that none of these partisan combatants have proved that voting machines were hacked. The argument that Trump himself asked Russia to hack Clinton to help find missing emails has only helped remind observers of another factor about emails that negatively affetced Clinton.
Many people who have read the New York Times story are saying that they have not been convinced that the U.S. voting machines were hacked during the election, in any of the states of the country. The story says much about the likely hacking of the Democratic Party's computers and from which emails were obtained and vital information passed to Wikileaks for publication.
Curious observers are aware that there may have been compromise of the computers of the Democratic and some of the party's bigwigs for the any publiusher to have access to the amssive information, like the ones Wikileaks published during the elections. But all these have not proved that the U.S. voting machines were hacked.
The elction results themselves from state to state based on Democratic Party and the Republiucan Party's strongholds did not show any deviation from the past, save Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the three battelground states that were won by Trump and made him the winner of the election, based on the electoral map and the 270 winning numbers.
Understandably, the Democratic party was expected to win in Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania, based party's past performances in those states. But the results from the states proved otherwise. And apart from Trump's winning from those three states, he was able to pull through in states like Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio.
It is clear that winning large number of votes in states like New York and California don't give candidates victory in the elections, without winning and getting the 270 winning electoral votes from the battleground states. And the question that was raised over the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin led to Jill Steins' call for recount in those three states.
The Wisconsin recount gave additional votes to Trump. Would there have been any difference to the recount in wisconsin, if recount has taken place in Michigan and Pennsylvania?
