This "study" is yet another spurious correlation with no evidence of causation. It observes that paper trails are negatively correlated with support for Clinton. As it happens, the states without paper trails happen to be mostly in the south, where Clinton enjoys the most support. I'm not sure why southern states resist paper trails, but whatever the reason, it is not because of fraud on the part of the Clinton campaign.
Pretty much every word in this title is wrong- it's not Stanford, it didn't confirm, and it wasn't fraud.
I personally hate wearing my tin foil hat, but Hillary Clinton really seems to attract a lot of controversies.
It's too bad that when paperless voting machines first started to become common, no one foresaw the possibility that unauditable voting machines might be subject to malicious tampering.