Just Announced: As of 3am EST Jill Stein has enough donations to pay for a 3 state recount

2 million in the first 12 hours ....another half a mil from midnight to 2am. Can you imagine the amount that will be pouring in tomorrow with the entire country off work, glued to the TV all day, and the MSM shills reporting this story every 15 minutes?

www.theverge.com...

Proof that theres far too many people out there with more money than brains .

originally posted by: Voiceofthemajority
2 million in the first 12 hours ....another half a mil from midnight to 2am. Can you imagine the amount that will be pouring in tomorrow with the entire country off work, glued to the TV all day, and the MSM shills reporting this story every 15 minutes?

www.theverge.com...

Now she just has to prove to a judge that she actually has standing to sue for a recount. Because there are *actual* rules in place already in those 3 states governing what may or may not trigger a recount. And *none* of those rules has been met in ANY of the 3 states.

In other words, she has to prove real harm was done to her.

It will never pass the smell test. She never, ever had a chance therefore no real harm was done.

But in these crazy times - anything is possible.

And for the record - I don't care either way as a recount will simply confirm the results of the election +/- a few votes on either side being changed during a recount. In other words, yet again a great use of time and resources...

Does she have standing though? I thought the petitioner had to have reasonable cause to believe their own standing would be impacted be a recount. No way hers would. Or is the criteria for recount different for each state?

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

As an outsider to all this I find it astounding that the Clintonites [not all] were banging on about how it was laughable that Trump might not accept the result if he suspected foul play. It's a bit hypocritical is it not, to now try and force a recount?

On the same token, just on the other side, we have the Trumpers [not all] who supported The Donald in his choice to have the Election looked into if he suspected foul play. Now that The Hillary side wants to force a recount because of the possibility of fraud should that not be allowed? It's just as hypocritical. Though perhaps proof of hacking should be obtained before a recount forced?

All that being said, I hope the recount proves Hillary lost by even more because as bad as Trump looks to be, he's not gonna bring about WWIII

The Green Party, however, says the intention of the recounts is not to help Hillary Clinton, but to serve as "part of an election integrity movement" that attempts to "shine a light on just how untrustworthy the US election system is." That lack of trust has deepened recently, too, as technology has theoretically made it possible for nefarious forces to quietly tweak voting results.

-op Source
At least that is clarified as the Green Party and other Independents very well need and deserve the honesty here. Though, it may help Hillary instead of really helping them.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

Now she just has to prove to a judge that she actually has standing to sue for a recount.

All this means to the Clinton operatives is that it's time for the judge shopping/blackmailing process to get underway. I'm sure Obama viz-a-vi the fbi will facilitate the passing of information on who's vulnerable.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
The Green Party, however, says the intention of the recounts is not to help Hillary Clinton, but to serve as "part of an election integrity movement" that attempts to "shine a light on just how untrustworthy the US election system is." That lack of trust has deepened recently, too, as technology has theoretically made it possible for nefarious forces to quietly tweak voting results.

-op Source
At least that is clarified as the Green Party and other Independents very well need and deserve the honesty here. Though, it may help Hillary instead of really helping them.

hahahahaa, good one! ...um, you don't really believe this, right?

She asked for $2.5m for the 3 state recount and is now saying she needs more money as the $2.5m is just for Wisconsin?

a reply to: UKTruth

I think the initial 2.5 mil was just to cover the actual filing fees for all three states and now she's looking for money to pay for attorneys and whatnot.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Does she have standing though? I thought the petitioner had to have reasonable cause to believe their own standing would be impacted be a recount. No way hers would. Or is the criteria for recount different for each state?

Yes it is different.

Each state has it's own laws/rules governing what may or may not trigger a recount.

If none of those are met (and they have not been) then an individual must sue to make it happen.

This PDF has some great info as to what the process needs to be in each state.

Contested Elections - State by State

originally posted by: Voiceofthemajority
a reply to: UKTruth

I think the initial 2.5 mil was just to cover the actual filing fees for all three states and now she's looking for money to pay for attorneys and whatnot.

I believe so. I think I remember seeing the figures 1.1 mil for WI, $600,000 for MI and $500,000 for PA.

a reply to: djz3ro

On the same token, just on the other side, we have the Trumpers [not all] who supported The Donald in his choice to have the Election looked into if he suspected foul play. Now that The Hillary side wants to force a recount because of the possibility of fraud should that not be allowed? It's just as hypocritical. Though perhaps proof of hacking should be obtained before a recount forced?

I agree.

It is just as hypocritical for the Trump voters to suggest that Hillary taking a second look at the votes should not be allowed based solely on how she spoke at one of the debates.

That being said, the only people I see calling for a recount are the people who didn't vote for Trump. Meanwhile, the candidate they are (still) actively campaigning for is... somewhere?... somewhere not asking for a recount, somewhere totally disengaged from the public.

If no one from the Clinton camp nor Hillary herself are publicly scrutinizing the results, what makes you think she has any chance of changing what's already happened?

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

This whole thing smells of a scam for cash. Site says she needs 1.1 million dollars for Wisconsin, and now I don't know exactly what a voting ward is, but there would need to be 220,000 of them in Wisconsin for it to cost that much.
Source

When is a Filing Fee Required? The filing fee, if any, should be estimated by the clerk and pre-paid3 by the petitioner at the time of filing. The amount of the filing fee depends on the total votes cast for the office4 as well as the difference between the total votes cast for the “leading candidate” and the total votes cast for the petitioner. The “leading candidate” is the candidate winning the election. In an election where more than one candidate is elected to the same office or in a primary election when two or more candidates are nominated, the “leading candidate” is the person receiving the lowest number of votes, but who is still elected or nominated. It is not the candidate with the most votes. Wis. Stat. § 9.01(1)(ag)5. If 1,000 or fewer votes are cast: No fee is required if the difference in the total votes cast between the leading candidate and those cast for the petitioner or between the affirmative and negative votes cast at a referendum is less than 10. If the difference is at least 10 votes, a fee of $5 per ward is required .

This was all setup for Thanksgiving, anyone could see this coming a mile away.... The MSM topic for dinner, the recount and Russia hacking, over turning the election etc.

They can recount all they want, Hillary lost..... They should just let it be, nobody likes a conceded sore loser.

If it happens to get turned around, you will see states petition to secede.... the United States will be a thing of the past.

Either way.... Trump will be the president of a New Republic, and Hillary the high priestess of The Great Satan.

originally posted by: Voiceofthemajority
a reply to: UKTruth

I think the initial 2.5 mil was just to cover the actual filing fees for all three states and now she's looking for money to pay for attorneys and whatnot.

Seems a bit odd. The filing fees in Wisconsin are just $5 per precinct.

Wish I'd thought of raising money for a "recount".

Oh well, opportunity has passed now.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Proof that theres far too many people out there with more money than brains .

Also that money not only buy votes but if there is enough of if it, it can be used to undermine a democratic process...

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Does she have standing though? I thought the petitioner had to have reasonable cause to believe their own standing would be impacted be a recount. No way hers would. Or is the criteria for recount different for each state?

After doing some research, I'm still unclear if she has to sue in MI or ask for a recount.

The law states:

"For multi-county race, a request for recount must be filed with the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the completion of the canvass".

The state of MI just finally certified their voting results yesterday. If that marks the "completion of the canvass", then Jill Stein can request a recount alleging either a) fraud or b) mistake in canvass or returns as long as she does so within 48 hours of the elections results being certified.

On the other hand, the "completion of the canvass" may have already happened, and in that case she'll need to sue.

Here's an interesting hypothetical. It's reasonable to assume that if her effort looks viable, it will be challenged by Trump before the evenly numbered Supreme Court. One seat remains vacant. See where this is going?

We could be headed toward a constitutional crisis sooner than people realize.

Time to bone up on Bush v. Gore.