"Despite being no more than a blip on the electoral radar, [Jill] Stein has now commandeered Pennsylvania's electoral process, with an eye toward doing the same to the Electoral College," the complaint filed Thursday states. "There is no evidence -- or even an allegation -- that any tampering with Pennsylvania's voting systems actually occurred."
December 2, 2016
"Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump have moved to block the vote recount in Pennsylvania, adding to complaints filed to stop similar proceedings in Michigan and Wisconsin."
Politico reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
Jill came tumbling after.
Stein's a communist. Enough reason to put an end to her nonsense
No job in the Trump Administration for Jill. But she is setting herself up nicely for the lecture circuit. Hillary Clinton at a deep discount.
Food fight!
Being wrong means never having to say Soros.
If they fail to get a recount in PA, it's over.
Legally, Trump will win court cases in MI and PA. WI might be a problem.
Judges don't want to get involved.
I read an account where the notarization for Stein's was wrong in MI. Demurrer or 12(b)(6) on that alone.
uh oh, get ready for the "Rush-alanche" .. he just mentioned Ann (very favorably)
Rush just mentioned the Althouse blog if I heard right, something about in the next half hour, which would be the 2nd hour. Still time to tune in perhaps.
Sort of Rush in the background. I'm programming a math problem.
2nd half hour.
But if Hillary can be a Crime Syndicate Boss pretending to be our Secretary of State, how can anyone complain when her successor candidate also wants all laws she violates ignored.
Rush visits for the comments.
traditionalguy said...
But if Hillary can be a Crime Syndicate Boss pretending to be our Secretary of State, how can anyone complain when her successor candidate also wants all laws she violates ignored.
12/2/16, 11:32 AM
Cause shut up!
As some President famously said "It is not illegal if I do it", to many, many people it is not illegal if a Clinton does it.
Jack and Jill worked in the mill
But business started to slack off.
So then the mill owner didn't know
Whether to lay Jill or Jack off.
I thought the deadline for filing a recount in PA had passed? Or is that just a dog whistle for "you're gonna need a bigger bribe"?
How can Stein possibly prevail in PA? She missed the statutory deadline. A damned boneheaded thing to do. Now she's suing -- on what basis? "Um, I f'ed up. Give me another try"?
If there's no PA recount, there's no HRC victory. Stein needed all three. Though why she's carrying water for HRC in the first place I do not understand.
If, and only if, they were interested in the validity of voting, they would ask for a recount in Cook County, New Jersey and other such cess pools.
Rush said Ann is kind!
Ann. Rush Limbaugh, gave a shout out to you today (12-2-16) on his radio program. It was around 11:45 am central time. He brought up your post about the Low-information voter article written by two poli sci professors. He said you were kind and liked the fact that you mentioned Rush had been using this term for years, and that someone who did not know that might be low-information themselves in the matters of politics.
There don't need to be facts. Just saying it may have been wrong is enough. That establishes the truth of the possibility it could have been stolen. Trump won this election with lies and now someone else is trying to mess it up with lies. Ha Ha! What a time we are headed for. Thank You, Peasants!
"Rush said Ann is kind!"
Cruel to be kind?
What is he so afraid of?
Althouse gets a re-mention at the start of the 2nd hour.
Time to start direct response advertising.
Meade heard it. I'll have to listen to the podcast later.
Not only kind but astute.
I'd punch him if he called my wife a stoot.
What the hell is a stoot, anyway?
@UnknownWhat is he so afraid of?
He isn't afraid of anything. For political capital, this is pure gold, getting Stein to say this:
"The recount in Michigan, which has been driven by an outpouring of grassroots support in the state — will go forward," she said in a statement. "The Michigan Board of State Canvassers and Director of Elections has been a model of professionalism in moving this recount forward in an efficient, transparent manner. Yet the Trump campaign’s cynical efforts to delay the recount and create unnecessary costs for taxpayers are shameful and outrageous."
Outstanding, Clinton trolled into "not accepting the results", now Stein accusing Trump of delaying the results (the recount is a delay in itself) & creating unnecessary costs.
The guy is the master of his domain.
That's been the most baffling part here. Wouldn't Hillary be the only one able to seriously make a challenge since Stein got next to nothing anyway?
I read an account where the notarization for Stein's was wrong in MI. Demurrer or 12(b)(6) on that alone.
Something about missing an indication that she signed it in the presence of the notarization official or something. Which seems to be, you know, the entire point of notarizing anything.
What is he so afraid of?
3 states being disenfranchised for, literally, no actual reason.
Don't know why you're so anxious to do so, but that's the way it is. To risk disenfranchisement, you'd best have a good reason to take that chance.
eric said...
If they fail to get a recount in PA, it's over.
It's already over.
Wisconsin Recount Day One netted Hillary 1 vote. She has to hope for, what, 60 something thousand for days like that?
We can expect her to concede (for realz, this time) in 2180 or so at this rate.
eric, lol
What the hell is a stoot, anyway?
It's smaller than a leppo.
What the hell is a stoot, anyway?
It's the end product of the taming of the shrewd.
"Wisconsin Recount Day One netted Hillary 1 vote."
Well, you know what the Dems say; count every vote. Even if the cost is $3,000,000/vote.
I'm not counting eggs until the electors cast their ballots Dec 19. The Democrat Party and the Media Palace Guard are having a diagnosable fit of hysteria and conniption.
Donald Trump and his supporters, Rudy and Newt, have been claiming that voting fraud was likely in Pennsylvania (and they have now changed their minds about fraud because Trump won), specifically noting that voting in some Philadelphia "divisions" showed zero votes for Romney in 2012. But officials claim that the voting machine in use don't permit subtracting votes once registered - so Snopes and PolitiFact Pennsylvania said the claim of fraud was false.
The fact is that the ELECTronic 1242 voting machine, first purchased in PA in 1984, has some serious security holes. First of all, the machines do not record each vote on paper and the voting count comes from old-fashioned E-Prom memory units that are removed from the machines at the end of the vote for use in determining vote counts.
At the end of election night, the machine spits out a long paper receipt showing the total votes recorded for each candidate. But that kind of paper trail is not the kind of paper backup you really need, say experts in voting security. Without a hard copy of the individual ballot that each voter checked, they maintain, it's not possible to do a legitimate recount.
Unknown said...
What is he so afraid of?
He is afraid that, now that the Democrats know how many votes need to be manufactured, they will get busy manufacturing those votes.
What the hell is a stoot, anyway?
A low information person making a comment.
The question is -- what are Stein and Clinton afraid of on the original vote tally?
Glenn Reynolds has been banging on the paper-ballot drum for a few years now. It's not a good drum. You can heist any vote, and a paper trail is not a help. Who's to drive and count the millions of Michiganders who dutifully show up with their little voting receipts in hand? (Who's to know who showed up? Who's to study the receipts for counterfeit? Who's to compare that to the initial count? Who's to wonder about voter eligibility in the first place?)
This is silliness. If I want to steal an election, I'm not going to worry much about recounts. I'll do it Saddam-style, by first terrorizing the voters.
Michelle Dulak Thomson wrote:
If there's no PA recount, there's no HRC victory. Stein needed all three. Though why she's carrying water for HRC in the first place I do not understand.
I have come to the conclusion Stein isn't carrying water for Clinton in this case. I think Clinton seriously considered calling for recounts in the early morning of November 9th, but someone, most likely the President, told her it was not only hopeless, but that Clinton would have no political cover coming from the White House if she did.
My theory is that Stein thinks she received far more votes than was reported in, for example, Wisconsin (she got 1.1% in a state Sanders won the Democratic primary 56-43). I have to admit to myself that her percentage in WI is quite a bit lower than I would have expected, too. However, to get a recount of any kind takes significant funds to pay for it unless the margin is less than 0.1%, and so she is forced to focus only on those states that were closest, but that Clinton lost- that being the only way the crowd-funding would suceed.
As I wrote here the other day, I would actually like to see Wisconsin hand-counted fully since Milwaukee County didn't want to do so.
gadfly,
I do not believe that any jurisdiction goes 100% for any candidate. Doesn't happen. If Philly "divisions" showed zero percent for Romney four years ago, therefore, something was wrong.
I am assuming, btw, that there are no "divisions" 100% for Trump this time.
Yancey Ward,
Yes, your take makes sense. Though Stein would need a lot more votes even to make the threshold for third party recognition.
I didn't know that Milwaukee County refused a recount. Why? Afraid it would go the wrong way?
Pennsylvania had voter-ID requirements in operation, state Supreme Court be damned, for the first time this election. The GOP candidate won PA for the first time since 1984.
Imagine if California had voter-ID requirements.
Math is hard.
Michelle,
Milwaukee Count apparently only wanted to do a machine count, not a hand count.
eric wrote -
"I'd punch him if he called my wife a stoot.
What the hell is a stoot, anyway?"
It's a type of weasel. Oh nevermind, that's a stoat.
If I want to steal an election, I'm not going to worry much about recounts. I'll do it Saddam-style, by first terrorizing the voters.
That's what the Clinton forces are doing for the Dec. 19 election.
HW Bush won PA in 1988.
The Left assured us that there is no fraud. The implication is that their request for a recount after their historical loss is an admission of fraud. This situation reminds me of Democrats assuring Americans that there was no mortgage crisis that ultimately caused the recession, destroyed several prominent Democrat financial corporations, and before the infusion of several hundred billion into the banking system threatened a depression.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said: "I do not believe that any jurisdiction goes 100% for any candidate. Doesn't happen." It did in the Chicago River Ward precinct where I was a poll watcher for the IVI in the 1970s. 100% of the registered voters in the precinct voted, and 100% of the votes were for the Democratic ticket.
I have a question. It is alleged that Stein filed for the recount in Wisconsin knowing that the recount would take time to do, thus putting the recount cert date past Dec 19, the day that the Electors vote for President. The idea is that the Electors in Wisconsin could not vote, thus reducing Trumps Electoral College vote count. If the same happened in PA and MI it might reduce Trump's Electoral College tally below 270 meaning that he would not be President until the House of Reps met. My understanding is that the person elected President needs a majority plus on of the Electoral votes to be President. However if the states above can't vote in the EC, then the 270 number is not a valid number. The majority plus one would be determined by the total number of Electoral votes that are valid. Trump would still have the majority plus one. Does this make sense.
mccullough said...
HW Bush won PA in 1988.
You're right, of course. I was off by an election. My wrong.
MDT and johns,
That's what makes examples like Philadelphia and Chicago so laughable in a sick way. Once you get up into the hundreds, error alone, voter or otherwise, will produce at least one vote going in the other direction. When I was in survey research, we joked that it was impossible to produce a question that would result in less than 3% saying the "wrong" anser.
If the recount causes delay in Wisconsin's ability to participate in the electoral college voting, can we start a class action law suit against Jill Stein and the Green Party for voter disenfranchisement and civil rights violations?
We should. How about 1 million per voter that could not be represented when the Electoral College convenes?
This better be done by 12/13 when states have to have any conflict with electors solidified to be represented on the 12/19 vote.
@Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
gadfly,
I do not believe that any jurisdiction goes 100% for any candidate. Doesn't happen. If Philly "divisions" showed zero percent for Romney four years ago, therefore, something was wrong.
I am assuming, btw, that there are no "divisions" 100% for Trump this time.
Hard core inner-city neighborhoods are driven by fear of not-so-nice people, so I don't know for sure, but the divisions have 100 to 600 registered voters and if there were only four such Philly divisions, then the fraud cannot be a serious consideration when compared to the entire state vote-count.
More importantly, if a vote recount is not possible because of the machines, then why did the recount request get consideration in the first place, especially if Stein didn't meet the filing deadline.
I have not read about the publishing of disrict vote breakdowns among the 1686 within the Keystone state. The county of Philadelphia broke 82.4% Clinton, 15.5% Trump.
I miss the days of Boss Tweed running things.
I read that in order to get a recount in PA one must show actual evidence of fraud. As far as I know Stein has shown no evidence of fraud in PA so why would a judge okay a recount?
>>and if there were only four such Philly divisions
There were 59 divisions that went 100% to Obama, for a total of 19,600 Obama vote to zero Romney votes.
"As far as I know Stein has shown no evidence of fraud in PA so why would a judge okay a recount?"
-- Judges are not infallible. Maybe they think it is not necessary to show it, or thinks Stein met the threshold to show the possibility. Need to read the decision/talk to the judge to know for sure.
According to the 12th Amendment, only the three candidates with the highest popular votes totals can be considered by the House if the presidential election is determined in that chamber. Trump, Clinton and Johnson were the top three, so Stein is really just an idiot.
My understanding is that the people doing the recount are paid $20 per hour, considerably above minimum wage. So, the recount is a part of the stimulus package. Better yet, the recount is privately funded, so no taxpayer dollars are used. Attacking the recount is wrongheaded. Have you swallowed a stop-the-count Scalia pill? Attacking "communist" Jill Stein is McCarthyism. At long last, have you no decency. I guess not, if you back Trump.
"I read that in order to get a recount in PA one must show actual evidence of fraud. As far as I know Stein has shown no evidence of fraud in PA so why would a judge okay a recount?"
All you need is a liberal judge.
"Better yet, the recount is privately funded, so no taxpayer dollars are used."
Report on Madison radio yesterday that Stein will not be paying the full cost of the recount.
Trumpit- It looks like you have no understanding of the recount. Stein is only paying for part of it, the taxpayers of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will be paying the majority of the cost. Reading is hard, understanding is even harder.
Does this make sense
No.
Your error is in thinking (wrongly) that the Republican slate of electors cannot (and will not) meet and cast their votes and then forward their votes to Congress. That is exactly what they will do. Besides, all three states have already been certified for Trump. A recount does not erase the prior certification.
Mike, why don't you provide a link?
Stein paid $3.5 mil on Tuesday, where do you get that the taxpayers are 'paying the majority'? Have not seen that in any published story.
"As far as I know Stein has shown no evidence of fraud in PA so why would a judge okay a recount?"
Pennsylvania judges are elected. No need to piss off half the voting population by denying the recount.
Fabi,
It is the top three presidential vote getters from Electors, not the popular vote, who the House must select from (if no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral votes).
Theoretically, the top three vote getters from the Electors could be people who didn't even run for presiden
The top three vice presidential vote getters from Electors, not the popular vote, get chosen by the Senate if none of the top three vote getters gets a majority of the Electoral vote.
I wondered about the popular vote reference, mccullough. My source was Wikipedia, so I should have looked at the footnotes.
Come on guys: "a stoot" is misdivision. The correct phrase is "ass toot" and it's a euphemism for 'audible fart'.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/02/walker-considers-change-recount-law/94798548/
"Madison — A federal judge Friday denied an emergency halt to the recount of the presidential vote in Wisconsin, allowing the process to continue until a Dec. 9 court hearing at least.
There is no need to halt the recount just yet because it will not do any immediate harm to Republican President-elect Donald Trump or his supporters, U.S. District Judge James Peterson wrote in a three-page order that called for both sides in the case to lay out written arguments before he takes any action.
Citing the case that cleared George W. Bush's path to the presidency, Trump supporters had filed a lawsuit early Friday to stop Wisconsin's recount and safeguard the president elect's Nov. 8 victory here."
100% of the registered voters in the precinct voted, and 100% of the votes were for the Democratic ticket.
Hell, that's nothing. There were Philly districts in 2008 that went 120% for Obama. I think it happened again in 2012.
Philly knows how to rock the vote !
So has anyone asked Stein yet how she feels about costing Clinton the presidency?
Blogger Mark said...
"Mike, why don't you provide a link?
Stein paid $3.5 mil on Tuesday, where do you get that the taxpayers are 'paying the majority'? Have not seen that in any published story."
Jeez, Mark, it was a one sentence post.. Where in there do you see that I said the taxpayers are paying the majority? I don't know how the ratio of Stein to taxpayers.
And a link? I said I heard it on the radio. WIBA to be exact, during their news piece at the top (or bottom) of the hour. How am I supposed to provide a link?
Please try harder.
"The Green Party nominee’s attorneys left a $973,250 check at the state Bureau of Elections to cover her legally required fees for seeking a recount of 6,300 precincts.
Secretary of State Ruth Johnson said Wednesday the recount cost could total $5 million, leaving the state and county governments on the hook for the remaining $4 million."
Don't know about WI or PA.
Original Mike acting like Vicki McKenna is a journalist, lmao.
That's his one source. LIV and refusing to do anything about it.
Hell, that's nothing. There were Philly districts in 2008 that went 120% for Obama. I think it happened again in 2012.
That is a voting conspiracy theory and is false.
So has anyone asked Stein yet how she feels about costing Clinton the presidency?
You are assuming that her voters would have voted for Clinton on a bet. I sincerely doubt it. More likely, if forced to choose between Clinton and Trump, they would have not voted.
You guys have no idea how much making a few hundred million dollars off of the power entrusted to them by the people of the United States pisses some people off.
I go to Snopes first on these kinds of thing, I don't trust their conclusions, but it is a good place to go to get a pointer to the facts of a given issue. This is from their take on the 100% Obama "divisions" in Philly.
Three of the 15th's registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.
So in their tightly focused investigation of these small divisions, looking for actual Republicans, they found at least three "listed" as living in the same apartment, and nobody ever heard of them, and "several" whos "address could not be found." And not one of these "Republicans" seems to ever actually vote Republican.
Snopes remains incurious, as I always say.
A better explanation is that the registrations are fraudulent, and that who ever created them did not want to make their registrations 100% Democrats so as not to tip their hand.
Somebody made those fraudulent registrations. Why go to the bother?
Somebody interested in the facts would check to see if those voters their neighbors never heard of, or whose "address could not be found" had actually voted.
Snopes remains incurious. But they are not partisan! No sirree!
"Original Mike acting like Vicki McKenna is a journalist, lmao.
That's his one source. LIV and refusing to do anything about it."
It wasn't Vicki McKenna, Mark. Again, it was the news section at the top/bottom of the hour.
You continue to misread what I wrote, this time purposefully. How about some honesty on your part?
Accusing any third-party votes of "costing" any major party candidate an election is a slander meant to overtly denigrate those who have voted for third-party candidates and to subtly intimidate voters from doing so in future elections. It presumes that only the major party candidates have a legitimate claim on office. It presumes the major party candidates are not responsible for their own losses. It presumes the third-party candidates would have voted otherwise for one of the two major party candidates. This is the most foolish presumption of all. By voting for third party candidates, voters demonstrate their disagreement with each of the two major party candidates
Peggy Coffey,
Your comment is insulting, so the discussion ends on your nasty note.
Please enjoy your buffoon of a president. The U.S. is now the laughing stock of the civilized world.
I too would like to read multiple sources saying the recount is going to be other-financed but I don't think they exist.
Trumpit, he certainly came off as a buffoon during the election, as many commenters on Althouse have already pointed out. No need to go into any more detail. However, shortly after Obama won in 2008, he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. That was embarrassing. I can't stand some of what Trump has unleashed and though I do not believe him when he repeatedly and I mean repeatedly claims he is the least racist person "you" know, I think it may be premature to say he is going to be a terrible president. I worry very much about him, but on the other hand it's early and that worry may be the motivation that many citizens need to make sure they are participating more and that the abuses they fear don't come to pass.
HT:
I predict that you will be sorely disappointed sooner rather than later. He disgusts as a human being. The only saving grace is that Trump makes for great late-night TV. The witty jokes come daily from some excellent writers for TV.
Imagine Trump's face on Mount Rushmore. That would be funny, too, although I don't see much more than tragedy in the coming years as a result of his administrations bad policies. A lot of the damage that he will cause will be permanent, in people's lives and in damage to the environment.
Yes, I was just thinking that as Americans, we can't seem to stand more than 8 years of one party in the Presidency, so we change, and hey that may not be such as bad thing. Except for the environment. But isn't it already so screwed?
I hope we can leave Mt Rushmore alone.
Trumpit said...
Peggy Coffey,
Your comment is insulting, so the discussion ends on your nasty note.
For all the poo you sling, you seem to be delicate about anything coming the other way. In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it. I dare say nobody is going to miss discussion with you.
Post a Comment