Which is why she wants a recount of Michigan.
Which uses only paper ballots.
quick, someone call this in to the washington post and new york times!
hurry!!
/s
I think her claim was that the hacking happened within the vote aggregating system, which could occur even with paper ballots. In other words, the totals don’t match what the local precincts reported. Should be pretty easy to check against the individual precinct numbers. I’d worry that more votes have been added to those ballot boxes since election day, the local totals adjusted, and lo-and-behold they will have proved “hacking” of the central system because the local numbers must be the right ones.
It also easy to “hack” the ballot readers where paper ballots are used. There is a youtube video where a group proved they could replace a removable memory cartridge on the machine and have it report whatever they wanted after all the ballots were scanned. Correct total ballots but a pre-designed percentage applied for each candidate. Then those numbers from the reader are reported to the state system and no internet access was ever needed — the election gets hacked even though the ballots were paper and even though no one from outside could hack into anything. All you would have to do would be to send out the data cartridges that had been physically hacked ahead of time to misreport the results.
Since the polls closed in Michigan the democrat s have been adding new ballots by the truckload I am sure.
Hey!
When you have paper, you can hack up a lung lugi into it!
RUSSIANS HACKED INTO THE PAPER BALLOTS TOO, SPOILING VOTES ONLY FOR HILLARY!!!
Hack! Hack! Hack!
And why she doesn't want a recount of New Hampshire, where Hillary won by less than 3,000 votes.
An honest media would point out these inconsistencies.
Yes, I know: "honest media" is an oxymoron.