What Does Mueller Do If He Discovers That Russia Hacked Voting Machines in 2016?
Most people believe that the Mueller probe is mainly looking into whether the the Trump Campaign and other Republicans received hacked emails and other information along with money from Russian sources. The Trump Administration was then supposed to lift sanctions on Russia and give them whatever other goodies Putin desired. Bigger questions to ask are whether they conspired to hack voting machines and change votes in 2016, if such a conspiracy was executed, and if there was hacking in 2018.
Even if the elections weren't hacked, there is a firm possibility that doing so was mentioned by either Trump campaign members or Russian intelligence officers. Mueller may be in position of proof of such a discussion. He has access to intelligence intercepts, emails, text messages, travel records, phone records, interviews with witnesses including those who have flipped and much more.
While the official narrative is that hacking of votes and voter registrations didn't occur, there is significant circumstantial evidence that such hacking occurred. The first bombshell is that exit polls predicted that Hillary Clinton won most battleground states by greater than the margin of error of 3%. She lost most of them during actual counts of votes. The State Department considers foreign elections to be rigged if the exit polls are off. If you want sources for that, click here, here, here, here, and here. Even a Washington Post story to debunk it, shows that they didn't check several potential ways to hack it.
Exit polls and the vote tallies themselves just scratch the surface. Events that happened show surprising moves and foresight by Trump Campaign people. The Trump Campaign pulled out of Virginia a month before election day, and Hillary won the state. Then Donald Trump, the guy who is so against spending his own money that he refuses to actually own most of the properties with his name on them (they're usually licensing deals) put $10 million into his supposedly doomed campaign. In Nevada, Trump sued to suppress voting. It was the only state that he sued. Republicans were soundly defeated there. In the non-battleground state of California Democrats gained even more seats in the state legislature.
Polls showed that Trump had a slim path to victory based on North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Instead he went to Michigan and Wisconsin and focused on those. He won every state except New Hampshire, which is the only state where Republicans seriously claimed that voter fraud occurred. Most likely no one hacked New Hampshire because they thought that they'd win it outright. It also has only a handful of electoral votes. This helped Republican downballot races who did little to investigate him. In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold was favored to beat Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Then he lost. Same thing, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Missouri.
Various Republican plans to cause voter chaos were scuttled by election day. Stop the Steal started by confirmed attention whore and probable target of the Mueller probe, Roger Stone planned to harass minority voters. Then they didn't. This is all despite having willing volunteers. This is despite the fact that many states allow for the challenging of voters.
Voter rolls also may have been tampered with as well. In 2016 black turnout fell from previous elections. Media outlets called it an enthusiasm gap. Yet no evidence indicates that Black voters refused to turn out against a candidate who they widely believed to be openly racist and in favor of a candidate whom they overwhelming supported in the Democratic primaries. If hacked it would be easy to remove voters from registration lists before an election and put them back on afterward so that no one would think that anything was amiss.
As for 2018, something a little bit different happened. Glitches occurred in states like Georgia and Texas where votes on voting machines would be changed. This wasn't a tactic to directly change votes. After all if you were hacking votes you could do it on machines without the voter being aware. Instead it was designed to suppress votes. How? Easy if there are huge lines with only one machine open, having to change your vote back to the choice that you made takes a long time and makes everyone else wait in line longer, and they may have to leave or otherwise not actually have a chance to vote.
The most disturbing question of all is why didn't prominent people, whether nonpartisan or Democrats say anything?