Obama administration throws cold water on vote recount effort

[SneekyNinja]

OMG that would leave Little Miss HouseKeeping in the hands of the unknown. I guess Trump will see about her in about 10 years.

"We're gonna SEND...THEM...BACK" - Trump 2016

 

[Fogdog]

Is it only when the answer is something you don't like that you can't comprehend it?
I thought 3 words was pretty easy, but let me further define it for you.

All (meaning Clit'n, Shrub, Obombya, and Dumph) or none.
I know the others can't be barred from the presidency having already had it, but their laws and executive orders can be nullified because they "weren't really elected" the same way Dumph was.

If you didn't have a problem with previous presidents getting elected w/ the same methods, why do you have a problem now?
The last time noise like this was made it was "hanging chads" in FLA.

Yeah, funny, I only comprehend comprehendable answers. I'm just limited that way. Your writing isn't really very clear. Voluminous and incredibly obvious stuff but not written very well.

Ok so the previous presidents were also not legitimate by your assertion. So, let's fire Obama too, or at least recount his whopping landslides, maybe let Romney run things for a few days. You good with that? You are conceding that Trump is not the legitimate prez. We will just award the presidency to the real winner, right?

Interesting that election fixing as a topic only comes up for democrats when their candidate loses.

Yes, interesting. Interestingly enough, as usual, you have it wrong. Interestingly, it was the Green Party and the very interesting Stein that petitioned for the interesting recount. Interesting how you conveniently forgot that point. Very interesting that you always say interesting when you are about to go stupid in the head.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

whatever conspiracy theory you are cooking up here has to be better than your conspiracy about how jews made a fake birth certificate for obama so he could assist the lizard people with 9/11 and make cats gay with GMO cat food.

The chemtrails made him do it.

 

[SneekyNinja]

OMG that would leave Little Miss HouseKeeping in the hands of the unknown. I guess Trump will see about her in about 10 years.

And have you not heard?

Trump moves on em like a bitch, he doesn't even wait.

 

[choomer]

Yeah, funny, I only comprehend comprehendable answers. I'm just limited that way. Your writing isn't really very clear. Voluminous and incredibly obvious stuff but not written very well.

Then quite replying if they are so difficult to read and understand.
Perhaps that could be more *comprehensible to you.

Ok so the previous presidents were also not legitimate by your assertion.

Yup, you can't take them out of office but you CAN negate their executive orders and all laws they signed into effect (pay attention Squeaky @SneekyNinja) since they weren't

the real winner, right?

==================================================================

Yes, interesting. Interestingly enough, as usual, you have it wrong. Interestingly, it was the Green Party and the very interesting Stein that petitioned for the interesting recount. Interesting how you conveniently forgot that point. Very interesting that you always say interesting when you are about to go stupid in the head.

According to your sources (reading WaPo again?) that may look to be correct, but since my writing isn't very clear, I'll quote an article:

"This morning Hillary Clinton's campaign general counsel, Marc Elias, confirmed what we all knew already, namely that Jill Stein is likely acting at the direction of the Clintons in her recount efforts in WI, MI and PA. The discovery came after Elias posted a note to Hillary voters this morning on Medium confirming that they would participate in Stein's recount efforts even though the Clinton campaign itself had decided against a recount because they had "not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology." This approach seems to align perfectly with the strategy we laid out two days ago:

We joke, of course, as Jill Stein's effort to raise money for recounts in WI, PA and MI is obviously being done on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It's a very clever approach (we would expect nothing less) as it allows Hillary to maintain the high road as the gracious loser while allowing someone else to play the bad guy...typical Clinton politics really.​

That said, since Jill Stein decided to act "completely independently" to waste the money of a bunch of donors the Hillary general counsel figures they might as well participate despite the fact that "the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount."

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.​

Of course, Clinton's failure to find any evidence of vote tampering was not for a lack of trying. Elias also highlighted the five steps they took, including having "lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result," to come up with some reason to launch their own election challenge. Why is it so hard to believe that Hillary simply lost the election?

First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.

Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.

Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.

Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.

Fifth, and most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses—where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.​

But we thought Hillary was outraged by Trump's comment that he wouldn't blindly accept the outcome of the election. Well this is awkward.'

 

[Justin-case]

Then quite replying if they are so difficult to read and understand.
]

Thin *QUIT reply'n if'n it don't make no cents

 

[Fogdog]

Then quite replying if they are so difficult to read and understand.
Perhaps that could be more *comprehensible to you.


Yup, you can't take them out of office but you CAN negate their executive orders and all laws they signed into effect (pay attention Squeaky @SneekyNinja) since they weren't


==================================================================


According to your sources (reading WaPo again?) that may look to be correct, but since my writing isn't very clear, I'll quote an article:

"This morning Hillary Clinton's campaign general counsel, Marc Elias, confirmed what we all knew already, namely that Jill Stein is likely acting at the direction of the Clintons in her recount efforts in WI, MI and PA. The discovery came after Elias posted a note to Hillary voters this morning on Medium confirming that they would participate in Stein's recount efforts even though the Clinton campaign itself had decided against a recount because they had "not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology." This approach seems to align perfectly with the strategy we laid out two days ago:

We joke, of course, as Jill Stein's effort to raise money for recounts in WI, PA and MI is obviously being done on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It's a very clever approach (we would expect nothing less) as it allows Hillary to maintain the high road as the gracious loser while allowing someone else to play the bad guy...typical Clinton politics really.​

That said, since Jill Stein decided to act "completely independently" to waste the money of a bunch of donors the Hillary general counsel figures they might as well participate despite the fact that "the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount."

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.​

Of course, Clinton's failure to find any evidence of vote tampering was not for a lack of trying. Elias also highlighted the five steps they took, including having "lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result," to come up with some reason to launch their own election challenge. Why is it so hard to believe that Hillary simply lost the election?

First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.

Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.

Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.

Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.

Fifth, and most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses—where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.​

But we thought Hillary was outraged by Trump's comment that he wouldn't blindly accept the outcome of the election. Well this is awkward.'

Umm, nope

Jill Stein and the Green party petitioned for the recount. Everything else in that article is pure fiction. What a shitty post that was. About your standard of shit though. Wordy, overwrought and wrong.

 

[choomer]

Umm, nope

Jill Stein and the Green party petitioned for the recount. Everything else in that article is pure fiction. What a shitty post that was. About your standard of shit though. Wordy, overwrought and wrong.

Prove it wrong.
Better yet, if you don't like reading my posts you don't have to.
The answer is just a click away.

But if you're just going to say it's wrong and fiction w/o some sort of factual rebuttal to the quotes from attorney Marc Elias of Hillary's campaign (kind of from the horses mouth) it really doesn't reflect well on your reasoning ability.

I like the glaring admission that they'd already done 5 things that are pretty expensive and had uncovered no anomalies, but Jill Stein runs with it because?

'Over the past couple of days we've written numerous times about Jill Stein's recount efforts in WI, MI and PA (see here, here and here). And while it's clear that Stein intends to move forward with recounts in all three states (she's now up to $6.1mm in donations), what is unclear, and quite perplexing, is exactly why she's pursuing these recounts in the first place. Here are the potential justifications from Stein's perspective, as we see them:

1. Personal self-interest? - Obviously, No. With less than 1% of the vote in WI, MI and PA, Stein obviously has no shot of winning any of the states in question.
2. Hopes of recount tipping states to Hillary? - No. Multiple experts and even Hillary campaign insiders have admitted that overturning election results with a margin of victory of several 1,000 votes is extremely unlikely. To win, Hillary would have to flip WI, MI and PA even though she trails by ~20k, ~12k and ~70k votes in each of those states, respectively...not going to happen.
3. Exposing voting machine hacking? - No. Even the Obama administration has confirmed the the election was "free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective" and that votes "accurately reflect the will of the American people." By failing to present even a shred of evidence of vote tampering in her WI recount petition, instead choosing to focus on wild conspiracy theories, Stein effectively also admits that there was no "hacking" of voting machines.
4. Fundraising scam to get millions in donations from disaffected Hillary voters? - Maybe. As of right now, Stein has raised ~$6mm of the $7mm she says she needs to fund recount efforts. Assuming Stein goes through with recounts in all three states and her cost estimates are reasonably accurate then she won't really have that much money left over to be added to the general Green Party coffers.

So, with no practical reason for forcing recounts, what exactly is Jill Stein up to?

As Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, pointed out to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, electors from around the country have to meet by December 19th to cast their electoral college votes. To the extent recounts in WI, MI and PA have not been completed by that time, which experts assign a high probability that they will not, there is a chance that the electoral votes from those three states wouldn't be counted leaving neither candidate with the required electoral votes to win the presidency (electoral count would be Trump 260 versus Hillary 232).

Wisconsin's recount will likely begin late next week, once the state has tallied a cost estimate and received payment from Stein's campaign, said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Political scientist Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said it would be extremely difficult to complete the recount on time.

"You may potentially have the state electoral votes at stake if it doesn't get done by then," said Haas.

A lawyer with Stein's campaign has said it wants the recount done by hand. That would take longer and require a judge's order, Haas said.

Perhaps the most important deadline is Dec. 19, when electors around the country must meet to cast their Electoral College votes, said Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

"That is a hard deadline and if a state were to miss that deadline, it would be technically in jeopardy of not having its electoral votes counted," he said.​

Call it a conspiracy theory since other ones like the MSM/Google and political campaigns colluding, the gov't recording all your communications and tracking you, key officials lying to congress, etc. haven't been proven to be true. /s

 

[UncleBuck]

Prove it wrong.
Better yet, if you don't like reading my posts you don't have to.
The answer is just a click away.

But if you're just going to say it's wrong and fiction w/o some sort of factual rebuttal to the quotes from attorney Marc Elias of Hillary's campaign (kind of from the horses mouth) it really doesn't reflect well on your reasoning ability.

I like the glaring admission that they'd already done 5 things that are pretty expensive and had uncovered no anomalies, but Jill Stein runs with it because?

'Over the past couple of days we've written numerous times about Jill Stein's recount efforts in WI, MI and PA (see here, here and here). And while it's clear that Stein intends to move forward with recounts in all three states (she's now up to $6.1mm in donations), what is unclear, and quite perplexing, is exactly why she's pursuing these recounts in the first place. Here are the potential justifications from Stein's perspective, as we see them:

1. Personal self-interest? - Obviously, No. With less than 1% of the vote in WI, MI and PA, Stein obviously has no shot of winning any of the states in question.
2. Hopes of recount tipping states to Hillary? - No. Multiple experts and even Hillary campaign insiders have admitted that overturning election results with a margin of victory of several 1,000 votes is extremely unlikely. To win, Hillary would have to flip WI, MI and PA even though she trails by ~20k, ~12k and ~70k votes in each of those states, respectively...not going to happen.
3. Exposing voting machine hacking? - No. Even the Obama administration has confirmed the the election was "free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective" and that votes "accurately reflect the will of the American people." By failing to present even a shred of evidence of vote tampering in her WI recount petition, instead choosing to focus on wild conspiracy theories, Stein effectively also admits that there was no "hacking" of voting machines.
4. Fundraising scam to get millions in donations from disaffected Hillary voters? - Maybe. As of right now, Stein has raised ~$6mm of the $7mm she says she needs to fund recount efforts. Assuming Stein goes through with recounts in all three states and her cost estimates are reasonably accurate then she won't really have that much money left over to be added to the general Green Party coffers.

So, with no practical reason for forcing recounts, what exactly is Jill Stein up to?

As Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, pointed out to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, electors from around the country have to meet by December 19th to cast their electoral college votes. To the extent recounts in WI, MI and PA have not been completed by that time, which experts assign a high probability that they will not, there is a chance that the electoral votes from those three states wouldn't be counted leaving neither candidate with the required electoral votes to win the presidency (electoral count would be Trump 260 versus Hillary 232).

Wisconsin's recount will likely begin late next week, once the state has tallied a cost estimate and received payment from Stein's campaign, said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Political scientist Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said it would be extremely difficult to complete the recount on time.

"You may potentially have the state electoral votes at stake if it doesn't get done by then," said Haas.

A lawyer with Stein's campaign has said it wants the recount done by hand. That would take longer and require a judge's order, Haas said.

Perhaps the most important deadline is Dec. 19, when electors around the country must meet to cast their Electoral College votes, said Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

"That is a hard deadline and if a state were to miss that deadline, it would be technically in jeopardy of not having its electoral votes counted," he said.​

Call it a conspiracy theory since other ones like the MSM/Google and political campaigns colluding, the gov't recording all your communications and tracking you, key officials lying to congress, etc. haven't been proven to be true. /s

GMOs made my cat gay.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Prove it wrong.

Go lick a dog's ass till it bleeds.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Then quite replying if they are so difficult to read and understand.
Perhaps that could be more *comprehensible to you.


Yup, you can't take them out of office but you CAN negate their executive orders and all laws they signed into effect (pay attention Squeaky @SneekyNinja) since they weren't


==================================================================


According to your sources (reading WaPo again?) that may look to be correct, but since my writing isn't very clear, I'll quote an article:

"This morning Hillary Clinton's campaign general counsel, Marc Elias, confirmed what we all knew already, namely that Jill Stein is likely acting at the direction of the Clintons in her recount efforts in WI, MI and PA. The discovery came after Elias posted a note to Hillary voters this morning on Medium confirming that they would participate in Stein's recount efforts even though the Clinton campaign itself had decided against a recount because they had "not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology." This approach seems to align perfectly with the strategy we laid out two days ago:

We joke, of course, as Jill Stein's effort to raise money for recounts in WI, PA and MI is obviously being done on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It's a very clever approach (we would expect nothing less) as it allows Hillary to maintain the high road as the gracious loser while allowing someone else to play the bad guy...typical Clinton politics really.​

That said, since Jill Stein decided to act "completely independently" to waste the money of a bunch of donors the Hillary general counsel figures they might as well participate despite the fact that "the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount."

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.​

Of course, Clinton's failure to find any evidence of vote tampering was not for a lack of trying. Elias also highlighted the five steps they took, including having "lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result," to come up with some reason to launch their own election challenge. Why is it so hard to believe that Hillary simply lost the election?

First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.

Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.

Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.

Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.

Fifth, and most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses—where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.​

But we thought Hillary was outraged by Trump's comment that he wouldn't blindly accept the outcome of the election. Well this is awkward.'

You're so fucking stupid.

The EC only elects Republicans against the popular vote (five times so far).

They've never done it for a Democrat.

 

[Fogdog]

Prove it wrong.
Better yet, if you don't like reading my posts you don't have to.
The answer is just a click away.

But if you're just going to say it's wrong and fiction w/o some sort of factual rebuttal to the quotes from attorney Marc Elias of Hillary's campaign (kind of from the horses mouth) it really doesn't reflect well on your reasoning ability.

I like the glaring admission that they'd already done 5 things that are pretty expensive and had uncovered no anomalies, but Jill Stein runs with it because?

'Over the past couple of days we've written numerous times about Jill Stein's recount efforts in WI, MI and PA (see here, here and here). And while it's clear that Stein intends to move forward with recounts in all three states (she's now up to $6.1mm in donations), what is unclear, and quite perplexing, is exactly why she's pursuing these recounts in the first place. Here are the potential justifications from Stein's perspective, as we see them:

1. Personal self-interest? - Obviously, No. With less than 1% of the vote in WI, MI and PA, Stein obviously has no shot of winning any of the states in question.
2. Hopes of recount tipping states to Hillary? - No. Multiple experts and even Hillary campaign insiders have admitted that overturning election results with a margin of victory of several 1,000 votes is extremely unlikely. To win, Hillary would have to flip WI, MI and PA even though she trails by ~20k, ~12k and ~70k votes in each of those states, respectively...not going to happen.
3. Exposing voting machine hacking? - No. Even the Obama administration has confirmed the the election was "free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective" and that votes "accurately reflect the will of the American people." By failing to present even a shred of evidence of vote tampering in her WI recount petition, instead choosing to focus on wild conspiracy theories, Stein effectively also admits that there was no "hacking" of voting machines.
4. Fundraising scam to get millions in donations from disaffected Hillary voters? - Maybe. As of right now, Stein has raised ~$6mm of the $7mm she says she needs to fund recount efforts. Assuming Stein goes through with recounts in all three states and her cost estimates are reasonably accurate then she won't really have that much money left over to be added to the general Green Party coffers.

So, with no practical reason for forcing recounts, what exactly is Jill Stein up to?

As Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, pointed out to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, electors from around the country have to meet by December 19th to cast their electoral college votes. To the extent recounts in WI, MI and PA have not been completed by that time, which experts assign a high probability that they will not, there is a chance that the electoral votes from those three states wouldn't be counted leaving neither candidate with the required electoral votes to win the presidency (electoral count would be Trump 260 versus Hillary 232).

Wisconsin's recount will likely begin late next week, once the state has tallied a cost estimate and received payment from Stein's campaign, said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Political scientist Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said it would be extremely difficult to complete the recount on time.

"You may potentially have the state electoral votes at stake if it doesn't get done by then," said Haas.

A lawyer with Stein's campaign has said it wants the recount done by hand. That would take longer and require a judge's order, Haas said.

Perhaps the most important deadline is Dec. 19, when electors around the country must meet to cast their Electoral College votes, said Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

"That is a hard deadline and if a state were to miss that deadline, it would be technically in jeopardy of not having its electoral votes counted," he said.​

Call it a conspiracy theory since other ones like the MSM/Google and political campaigns colluding, the gov't recording all your communications and tracking you, key officials lying to congress, etc. haven't been proven to be true. /s

So, Stein petitioned for the recount. Clinton's campaign group are willing to cooperate but say there is no real chance of overturning the election. There appear to be irregularities. A court can review the situation and rule on granting an extension. Your implication of some connivance is BS. Why so butt hurt?

 

[spandy]

You're so fucking stupid.

The EC only elects Republicans against the popular vote (five times so far).

They've never done it for a Democrat.

You should get this changed. All it takes is a constitutional amendment. So 2/3's vote in both the House and the Senate and the ratification of 38 states out of 50.


RIGGED!!!

 

[Fogdog]

Then quite replying if they are so difficult to read and understand.
Perhaps that could be more *comprehensible to you.


Yup, you can't take them out of office but you CAN negate their executive orders and all laws they signed into effect (pay attention Squeaky @SneekyNinja) since they weren't


==================================================================


According to your sources (reading WaPo again?) that may look to be correct, but since my writing isn't very clear, I'll quote an article:

"This morning Hillary Clinton's campaign general counsel, Marc Elias, confirmed what we all knew already, namely that Jill Stein is likely acting at the direction of the Clintons in her recount efforts in WI, MI and PA. The discovery came after Elias posted a note to Hillary voters this morning on Medium confirming that they would participate in Stein's recount efforts even though the Clinton campaign itself had decided against a recount because they had "not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology." This approach seems to align perfectly with the strategy we laid out two days ago:

We joke, of course, as Jill Stein's effort to raise money for recounts in WI, PA and MI is obviously being done on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It's a very clever approach (we would expect nothing less) as it allows Hillary to maintain the high road as the gracious loser while allowing someone else to play the bad guy...typical Clinton politics really.​

That said, since Jill Stein decided to act "completely independently" to waste the money of a bunch of donors the Hillary general counsel figures they might as well participate despite the fact that "the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount."

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.​

Of course, Clinton's failure to find any evidence of vote tampering was not for a lack of trying. Elias also highlighted the five steps they took, including having "lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result," to come up with some reason to launch their own election challenge. Why is it so hard to believe that Hillary simply lost the election?

First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.

Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.

Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.

Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.

Fifth, and most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses—where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.​

But we thought Hillary was outraged by Trump's comment that he wouldn't blindly accept the outcome of the election. Well this is awkward.'

You should be happy that this recount is going on. You've been talking about fixed elections unto spam. Now, Jill Stein and the Green Party are going to show just how dirty the Republican win was. Isn't it great that the legitimacy of Trump's win in Wisconsin and other states is under review?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

You're so fucking stupid.

The EC only elects Republicans against the popular vote (five times so far).

They've never done it for a Democrat.

That's odd. The first was neither a Republican or a democrat. From wiki:

In the 1824 presidential electionJohn Quincy Adamswas elected President on February 9, 1825. The election was decided by the House of Representatives under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution after no candidate secured the required number of votes from the Electoral College. All four candidates in the election identified with the Democratic-Republican Party. Andrew Jackson had received the most votes (a plurality), but not the required majority of electoral votes necessary to avoid sending the election to the House. This became a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a "corrupt bargain" and were inspired to create the Democratic Party.[1][2]

So the genocidal maniac founder of the Democrat party, was in a 4 way race with members of his own party, and lost to a member of his own party.

Btw, the GOP didn't exist for another 30 years(1854).

 

[SneekyNinja]

That's odd. The first was neither a Republican or a democrat. From wiki:

In the 1824 presidential electionJohn Quincy Adamswas elected President on February 9, 1825. The election was decided by the House of Representatives under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution after no candidate secured the required number of votes from the Electoral College. All four candidates in the election identified with the Democratic-Republican Party. Andrew Jackson had received the most votes (a plurality), but not the required majority of electoral votes necessary to avoid sending the election to the House. This became a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a "corrupt bargain" and were inspired to create the Democratic Party.[1][2]

So the genocidal maniac founder of the Democrat party, was in a 4 way race with members of his own party, and lost to a member of his own party.

Btw, the GOP didn't exist for another 30 years(1854).

Literally the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

Make sure to clean your gun loaded and cocked.

 

[NLXSK1]

Literally the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

Make sure to clean your gun loaded and cocked.

Do facts burn your eyes or something?

 

[Fogdog]

Do facts burn your eyes or something?

Literally the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

Make sure to clean your gun loaded and cocked.

I think your nomination for dumbest motherfucker on the planet has a competitor.

 

[SneekyNinja]

I think your nomination for dumbest motherfucker on the planet has a competitor.

It can be a shared title I suppose.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, yes you are.

When faced with an historical fact that you got wrong, you cry and scream and call others stupid. Welcome to my ignore list. You join the the ranks of shitheels like Uncle Buck, Londonfog, and Chesus Rice. I'm sure you like that company, after all, you're a piece of shit too.

Don't bother replying, your intended audience will not read it.

LOL

funny how you never bothered to put actual neo-nazis on your ignore list.