Latest update on the Clintonstein recount: time to pay up or shut up in Wisconsin

Here's a quick rundown of the current status of the green party 3 state recount effort, updated with the most recent info available. Of particular note is that as of 2:30pm eastern time, WI is still waiting on a $3,500,000 payment from Mrs Stein which is due in full today or the recount will not move forward.

Wisconsin:

On Monday, the Elections Commission approved a timeline and steps to undertake a recount, following petitions from Stein and Reform Party presidential nominee Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente.

The commission noted the recount order is contingent on a full payment for the process, due Tuesday and is to cost $3.5 million, more than half of what Stein's campaign has raised for all 3 state recount processes.

Stein initially requested a statewide recount by hand, but the Wisconsin Elections Commission said that the campaign would need a court order for that to occur. Stein has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force a complete "by hand" recount.

Pennsylvania:

After missing the deadline for filing, legal representation for the Stein campaign filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of 100 voters in Pennsylvania requesting a statewide recount. The case says a "primary purpose of the recounts" is to "determine if computer intrusions or hacking of electronic systems impacted the results" and includes an affidavit from a computer science professor .

As of yet no word as to how this case can be expected to progress in the coming days.

Michigan:

On Monday, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified that president-elect Trump won the Great Lakes State and its 16 electoral votes, besting Clinton by 10,704 votes.

Monday's results brings Trump's total electoral vote count to 306 versus Clinton's 228, according to the official tally.

Stein's campaign said in a statement it plans to demand a statewide hand-count of the results in Michigan on Wednesday.

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

Stein needs to drop this song and dance. It isn't going to change anything and is doing more to give credence to Trump's crazy idea that the popular vote was rigged.

www.nytimes.com... 6/us/politics/clinton-camp-will-join-push-for-wisconsin-ballot-recount.html?_r=0

but i thought clintons team didnt want to do this krazyshot....

www.washingtonpost.com... in-recount-with-an-eye-on-outside-interference-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.47d47736d36f

but wait clinton wants nothing to do with this right?

www.usatoday.com... ews/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/26/clinton-participate-wisconsin-recount/94473712/

clinton: not accepting the results is unamerican
krazysh*t: no she didnt say that
reality: clinton is a hypocrite, and afraid to do a recount in california, only in states she lost

people.com... ating-recount/

did i mention clintons team doesnt want a recount

a reply to: nobunaga

Clinton going along with the recount is not the same as them demanding a recount which is what you seem to be suggesting.

a reply to: Krazysh0t




Right and Stein doing it in Hillarys behalf is totally out of the realm of possibilities.


Or is it?

So only one state is willing to take the money, that's what I thought.

Nothing to see here, is over Hillary for you and your proxy stein, is time to crawl back into the hole you got out of it to wither, you never will be presidents of the US.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Right and Stein doing it in Hillarys behalf is totally out of the realm of possibilities.


Or is it?

I guess that really depends on who you choose to believe.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to make one thing very clear: They don’t want a recount

FIX: Explain why you at the Clinton campaign decided to participate actively in Jill Stein’s recount in Wisconsin even though you didn’t find any major anomalies in your own post-election research into potential hacking or fraud?

Elias: First, we are going to participate because it’s a recount involving our election. We made clear that we were not planning to initiate any recounts. However, Jill Stein has now filed for a recount in Wisconsin. As one of the candidates in the race we are necessarily involved in the process and will participate. We do not expect to challenge ballots, or delay the electors from being certified by the state. Our role will be to observe the process and ensure that Secretary Clinton and her voters’ interests are protected and that there is an accurate vote count. As a side note, I have been surprised at how much attention my Medium post has received and even more surprised by some of the ways it has been interpreted. Let me be clear: We have not asked for a recount. We have not sought a recount. We have not pushed for a recount. What we have done is say that if there is going to be a recount, we will participate in the ways I have described.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


What a wonderful position to hold...

Oh noes... we do not want a recount because we have no evidence whatsoever that the election was compromised...oh wait...Jill is doing it.... just for the three states we need the most... my my my what a nice coincidence.

No Sir we don't want a recount... but we will participate in the recount of three states we desperately needed to win.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, poops like a duck............

Ever wonder how much money the Clinton campaign has donated to Stein's recount effort? Most people would.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Right and Stein doing it in Hillarys behalf is totally out of the realm of possibilities.


Or is it?

I guess that really depends on who you choose to believe.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to make one thing very clear: They don’t want a recount

FIX: Explain why you at the Clinton campaign decided to participate actively in Jill Stein’s recount in Wisconsin even though you didn’t find any major anomalies in your own post-election research into potential hacking or fraud?

Elias: First, we are going to participate because it’s a recount involving our election. We made clear that we were not planning to initiate any recounts. However, Jill Stein has now filed for a recount in Wisconsin. As one of the candidates in the race we are necessarily involved in the process and will participate. We do not expect to challenge ballots, or delay the electors from being certified by the state. Our role will be to observe the process and ensure that Secretary Clinton and her voters’ interests are protected and that there is an accurate vote count. As a side note, I have been surprised at how much attention my Medium post has received and even more surprised by some of the ways it has been interpreted. Let me be clear: We have not asked for a recount. We have not sought a recount. We have not pushed for a recount. What we have done is say that if there is going to be a recount, we will participate in the ways I have described.

Ridiculous, then why not choose New Hampshire, has even closer margin and there was reported fraud in a coup,e counties. Someone tipped jill off and it was probably Soros in my opinion.

a reply to: RickinVa

Like I said, "I guess that really depends on who you choose to believe." Anything else you got for me? Because I'm already on the record saying I don't approve of this recount. So it's not like you can pin my opinion in this thread on me wanting one too.

originally posted by: Man0nFire

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Right and Stein doing it in Hillarys behalf is totally out of the realm of possibilities.


Or is it?

I guess that really depends on who you choose to believe.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to make one thing very clear: They don’t want a recount

FIX: Explain why you at the Clinton campaign decided to participate actively in Jill Stein’s recount in Wisconsin even though you didn’t find any major anomalies in your own post-election research into potential hacking or fraud?

Elias: First, we are going to participate because it’s a recount involving our election. We made clear that we were not planning to initiate any recounts. However, Jill Stein has now filed for a recount in Wisconsin. As one of the candidates in the race we are necessarily involved in the process and will participate. We do not expect to challenge ballots, or delay the electors from being certified by the state. Our role will be to observe the process and ensure that Secretary Clinton and her voters’ interests are protected and that there is an accurate vote count. As a side note, I have been surprised at how much attention my Medium post has received and even more surprised by some of the ways it has been interpreted. Let me be clear: We have not asked for a recount. We have not sought a recount. We have not pushed for a recount. What we have done is say that if there is going to be a recount, we will participate in the ways I have described.

Ridiculous, then why not choose New Hampshire, has even closer margin and there was reported fraud in a coup,e counties. Someone tipped jill off and it was probably Soros in my opinion.

So why didn't he tip Clinton off then? Why tip off someone who's significance in the Presidential race didn't even rise far enough to be a spoiler?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We made clear that we were not planning to initiate any recounts.

If the information is true in the link below, why did it take a call from Obama to get Hillary to concede? It looks like Obama had a better plan in mind and it may have been to manipulate Stein into initiating the process.

The Hill reports that authors Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen say sources told them Obama called Clinton as results came in from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and told her: "You have to concede."

The sources say that in Clinton's Manhattan hotel room, some aides thought there was still hope and urged her to wait as long as possible, but the atmosphere changed after Obama's call.

"If anybody knew what actually happened that night, no one would have conceded,"

www.newser.com...

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

So far, all I'm learning from Stein's efforts does not bode well for any of us:

1. It's damn hard and really really expensive to conduct any kind of fact-check on our election system; and,
2. Our political critters sure don't want us to have any kind of fact-check on our election system.

So we're just supposed to take the word of those counting the votes. I'm not liking this at all...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

not too hard for soros to donate a bunch of money to jill stein

why does jill stein think she won wisconsin?

pretty easy for soros to make it look like jill stein, and hrc just "tag along"
we all know whos behind... get off your horse

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Man0nFire

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Right and Stein doing it in Hillarys behalf is totally out of the realm of possibilities.


Or is it?

I guess that really depends on who you choose to believe.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to make one thing very clear: They don’t want a recount

FIX: Explain why you at the Clinton campaign decided to participate actively in Jill Stein’s recount in Wisconsin even though you didn’t find any major anomalies in your own post-election research into potential hacking or fraud?

Elias: First, we are going to participate because it’s a recount involving our election. We made clear that we were not planning to initiate any recounts. However, Jill Stein has now filed for a recount in Wisconsin. As one of the candidates in the race we are necessarily involved in the process and will participate. We do not expect to challenge ballots, or delay the electors from being certified by the state. Our role will be to observe the process and ensure that Secretary Clinton and her voters’ interests are protected and that there is an accurate vote count. As a side note, I have been surprised at how much attention my Medium post has received and even more surprised by some of the ways it has been interpreted. Let me be clear: We have not asked for a recount. We have not sought a recount. We have not pushed for a recount. What we have done is say that if there is going to be a recount, we will participate in the ways I have described.

Ridiculous, then why not choose New Hampshire, has even closer margin and there was reported fraud in a coup,e counties. Someone tipped jill off and it was probably Soros in my opinion.

So why didn't he tip Clinton off then? Why tip off someone who's significance in the Presidential race didn't even rise far enough to be a spoiler?

Establishment was extremely confident they were going to win, because they were hacking the voter machines in clintons favor. Well they lost, so now they are wondering why. Why didn't the voter machines manipulation work as planned? Well there very well could have been a counter coup on the machines by trump campaign. So their plan is to use Stein as a pawn, give her evidence that the manipulation can happen and did happen. This risks exposing the original rigging by Clinton, but will also shine a light on a potential counter coup rigging. Hence the tone in trumps tweets. Just a theory at this point.

a reply to: Boadicea

Ah, people have so much short time memories, Boadicea you forgot the infamous Florida hanging chads back in past no long time ago.

When you have already a legit winner in any state, no state will want a repeat of the hanging chads in Florida.

a reply to: Man0nFire

Wow that is a crazy sequence of events (not to mention logically bizarre). Got any proof of these crazy allegations?

originally posted by: nobunaga
a reply to: Krazysh0t

not too hard for soros to donate a bunch of money to jill stein

Nor is it hard for him to donate to Clinton.

why does jill stein think she won wisconsin?

I'm pretty sure she doesn't. I'm PRETTY sure she is doing this to prevent Trump winning not to secure Clinton's victory. Of course you guys could be right and they are in cahoots, but then again in order for me to believe that you'd need actual evidence. And everything out so far is pretty clear that Clinton is only going along with the recount to because it is the right thing to do so to make it an easy and quick recount. So you're going to need some PRETTY compelling evidence here.

pretty easy for soros to make it look like jill stein, and hrc just "tag along"
we all know whos behind... get off your horse

Which high horse is that? I'm sitting here taking flack for using logic and common sense against these ludicrous claims and because you can't pin my opinion to being a Clinton supporter suddenly I'm sitting on a high horse. Lol. How about proving Stein and Clinton's corroboration on this project for a change instead of just leveling accusations? But NAAAAH that would require intellectual responsibility. Can't have that can we?

No evidence, other than common sense. Jill would not target these three states specifically without some sort of confidence there was election fraud. She knows something, Obama knows something, and both Clinton and trump know something. My bet is this is big. Clinton is using the nuclear option. Potentially expose everything, she has nothing to lose

a reply to: eisegesis

Circumstantial. You don't know what transpired on that phone call and interjecting your own transcript is dishonest. For all you know Obama just called to level some common sense on her and to have her just let it go.