I don't trust Greg Palast for some reason, but he's been reporting this issue for a long time (here's an article from 2012). Maybe the lack of trust is my own brainwashing, who knows. But it's been pretty clear for some time that 1) voting machines are hackable, and 2) there are enough dishonest politicians and party workers to give physical access if remote access is too difficult.

Plus the Palast's article makes a good point - the most ignored and repressed districts are going to get the crappiest, most hackable machines.

I still don't believe Putin risked the US election simply on using paid spammers using micro-targeted marketing. I think he made sure machines were hackable and that he could switch enough votes. I.e. the vote count was always going to be close - just enough. In those key states. Despite Hillary's advantage in the polls (who would believe crooked Hillary anyway? Certainly the Republican majority in Congress would give Trump the benefit of the doubt - "anything to win" is their motto.)

And it's been a year now with evidence of Putin trolls and we're back to whether Putin & Trump "colluded", despite it being ever more and more obvious they "conspired", with Sessions, the now defended AG meeting with Kislyak *several times* that he denied to do help along this bit of dirty work, as did so many others.

But yeah, I want the bit about the machines to come out too - those "reviews" in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were shut down way too quick and were never designed to dig into all the hacking possibilities that could have been.