by Philip Hodges and Jeff Dunetz

Although the results of the vote count were released the day after election day, announcing that Trump had won the state, the results weren’t certified until Wednesday. Initially, Trump had won by 13,107 votes. But once the vote tally was certified, his lead shrunk a bit.

His official win makes him the first Republican to have won the state of Michigan since 1988.

The secretary of state’s office released this statement on Michigan’s vote-tallying process, in part:

“Many people have asked about Michigan’s process for counting ballots and certifying election results. Please be aware that all 1,521 Michigan cities and townships completed ballot counting and reported unofficial results by the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 9. The county canvassing boards, as they do after every election, then began their work to review and certify the results from each precinct.”

Green Party nominee Jill Stein has raised some $4.7 million – ironically more money raised in a vastly shorter amount of time than the $3 million she raised from her entire campaign – to pay for recounts in three closely contested states, including Michigan. The other two “suspicious” states are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Hillary won New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada by fewer votes than Trump won Pennsylvania, but there will be no recount in any of those three states.

While Trump won Pennsylvania by around 78,000 votes, Clinton won New Hampshire by less than 3,000 votes. Hillary won Minnesota by less than 44,000 votes and Nevada by around 26,000 votes.

Yet, no recount in those states will be conducted, even though Hillary won them by a smaller margin than she lost Pennsylvania.

So, why is Jill Stein spearheading the recount project when she clearly has nothing to benefit from it? Could it be that another campaign is pushing her to do it, so that this other campaign can be kept separate from it?

Earlier this week we reported a group of Hillary supporters that “includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Last week the group had a conference call with Jon Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias and laid out their findings:

The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.

While this challenge seems like a very, very, long-shot, a month ago a Trump victory seemed to be a long-shot. On the other hand I am sure that the Trump team is very aware of what is happening and has a team of lawyers working on contesting any challenge that comes up.

Apparently, the  White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result.

The media and the Clinton campaign were the ones who made it such a huge issue when Trump didn’t say whether he would concede the election (unless he won). Now, if the Clinton campaign are actually the ones behind this recount push – Jill Stein’s challenge is Hillary’s way to protest while obeying Obama.

Parts of thos post were originally seen at Eagle Rising