re: #303 Myron Falwell (no relation)

Notably, though, Clinton did not initiate the recount herself, and Elias wrote that the campaign had not planned to, because it had found no actionable evidence of hacking.

The Clinton campaign had investigated the matter extensively. Elias wrote the campaign had “lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies” and had also “monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses  — where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night.” He wrote that the campaign had also met with outside experts and “attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.”

Now that a recount effort was underway, Elias wrote that it was “important” to participate in the proceedings. He played down the idea that the recount would change the outcome.

“We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states —  Michigan  —  well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount,” Elias wrote. “But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, rejected the notion that the campaign’s actions might suggest to some that it was not accepting the election results.