Headline in the Guardian: “US recounts find no evidence of hacking in Trump win but reveal vulnerabilities” Click Here

The article points to conclusions given by J Alex Halderman and Matt Bernhard, both of the University of Michigan.  “After the talk, Bernhard clarified that no evidence of hacking is not the same as evidence of no hacking. “We didn’t conclude that hacking didn’t happen,” he told the Guardian, but “based on the little evidence we have, it is less likely that hacking influenced the outcome of the election.”

Got that?

Watch their video on YouTube “Recount 2016: An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election”   Click Here

They do a great job of explaining how the call for a recount came about, how it did not happen except in Wisconsin, and how hacking of voting machines could be done.  On this last point, they believed our voting machines were very vulnerable.

However, to claim that there is no evidence when in fact no research has been conducted to make that determination is a form of deception. I know–researchers do not like to say, “we don’t know,”  But maybe I missed how they actually did the necessary research to draw conclusions. What do you think?

Sadly, without verifiable elections, we really just don’t know if the will of “we the people” has been accurately reflected in election results.