Reply #11: The original NYT article gave the presumably [View All]

[Igel]

correct totals that replaced the unofficial election-night reports.

It was the replacement of unofficial results by official results that prompted the story in the first place. Since the unofficial results have standing only for early publicity purposes (that easily quantifiable momentum of an inherently massless abstract noun) there's no legal recourse--no harm no foul. Of course, people have claimed that the unofficial results led to the press attributing delegates to HRC that she never earned (and never actually received), reducing BO's "momentum" in some non-quantifiable but obviously hugh!! way.