Judge rejects Jill Stein's request for hand recount in Wisconsin

MADISON, Wis. — Green Party candidate Jill Stein paid $3.5 million Tuesday to clear the way for Wisconsin's presidential vote recount but had a judge reject her lawsuit to require all Wisconsin counties to do the recount by hand.

Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn said the effort to force the hand recount, which was backed by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign, did not meet the state’s legal standard for prohibiting the use of machines in the recount, saying that the two campaigns did not show a hand recount, though more thorough, was necessary or show there was a clear and convincing evidence of fraud or other problems.

Bailey-Rihn said there were good reasons to do a hand recount but no legal basis for her to mandate it.

www.usatoday.com...

I don't really know why she wanted a hand recount to begin with but it is not happening.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

now she needs to give all the money left to charities, or go to jail for fraud.

She should be happy that she's even getting a recount in the first place. Has she got a single scrap of evidence to suggest the election was rigged? if she is indeed possession in of such evidence, then why has she not handed it over to the correct authorities?

Nope. Quick cash grab and publicity stunt. That's all this is.

Because this is Hillary's last chance to steal the election, and they need an excuse to slip in about 30,000 more ballots with her name on them.

Personally, I think Donald Trump called this one right: Jill Stein is scamming Clinton's supporters for money. That's why she grumbled when the cost went up. She was planning on only spending maybe half of the money she raised, and then quietly slipping the rest into her pocket. She doesn't expect the recount to change anything.

We don't need a recount. We need a voter ID check in two states with the highest percentage of illegal aliens. Really getting tired of people saying there no evidence of fraud on a massive scale. First, nobody knows how many illegal aliens are in the US. Impossible to know that information. The estimations are all over the place. Second, nothing stopping them from voting.

Fairly clear to me Stein is only interested in getting paid to put her name on the recount issue. Somebody with a lot of money is angry and wanted to send a message to Trump. They know he won and are being a sore loser.

GOOD! It'll be interesting to find out what happens to the money.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

...but what about that disclaimer? Can they still keep it if it is going to further their causes elsewhere?

Jill who? Hillary who? Oh, you mean the losers.

These people just irritate the living hell out of me. They spend months bitching about Trump saying the vote is rigged if he didn't win, how he would undermine our democracy, then turn right around when they lose and whine about a recount. They thought Hillary had this one in the bag and got a nasty little surprise.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Towards Jill Stein's GreenFriendly™ Hybrid Luxury Limo and Green energy-powered Mansion would be my guess.

She needs a hand recount of brain cells.

a reply to: DAVID64

Hahaha..you're right. They berated Trump for suggesting he might do exactly what they're doing--it's quite the pathetic display of immaturity and a prime example of being a spoiled, sore loser.

This is tantamount to a hissy fit, and nothing more--and they're so good at throwing them, though, that I don't see it ending anytime soon.

Although, to be fair, I bet if the roles were reversed, Trump could be out-hissy-fitting the Dems in this regard, as he is equally deficient in maturity...but it would be more entertaining to watch, that's for sure.

This is what our politics have become. I don't foresee another election in my lifetime where there will not be some sort of contested results and recounts wanted--it's what we get with a divisive two-party system, I guess.

a reply to: LifeMode

And how exactly would an illegal vote? Some people are lost in the infowar sauce. SMH. Keep trusting 16 year old tweeters. LMAO

a reply to: DAVID64

Yet here you are bitching. Sore winners. Never seen anything like this.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: LifeMode

And how exactly would an illegal vote? Some people are lost in the infowar sauce. SMH. Keep trusting 16 year old tweeters. LMAO

I don't do infowars, but I have looked at California's voter registration and election laws. Here’s how an ineligible person could easily register to vote fraudulently and then cast a vote fraudulently, in California, without raising any red flags in the system:

First the person would register to vote by mail — without providing any ID AND without providing a DL#, ID#, and SS#. California allows this:

Voter Registration – State ID Requirement (See also Chapter 1) SB 1016 (signed into law in October 2005 and effective January 1, 2006) amends California Elections Code section 2150(7) to conform California’s voter registration requirements to the requirements of HAVA. Now, under both federal law and state law, voters must provide their driver’s license number if they have a valid and current driver’s license or the number provided on a California state identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. If they do not, they are required to provide the last four digits of their social security number. If they do not have a driver’s license number, state identification number or social security number, the state will assign them a unique number, which will be their identifier for purposes of voter registration.

Link

There is no extra process in place to verify registrants who do not provide any of those numbers.

Next, the person will receive a ‘Voter Notification Card’ in the mail, to confirm they are registered:

Verifying voter registration status
After a person registers or re-registers to vote, the county election office sends a “Voter Notification” card in the mail to verify that the registration form has been received and processed.

Link

Lastly, they go vote...AND...although they will be required to show an acceptable form of ID -- since they did not show ID to register to vote -- an acceptable ID, in California includes a ‘Voter Notification Card:'

Satisfactory Proof of Identity

Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 20107(d)(2) lists “Other Documents” that satisfy the proof of identity requirement. These other documents will be sufficient if the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election, unless the document is intended to be of a permanent nature such as a pardon or discharge.

Other documents include a:

G. voter notification card issued by a governmental agency;

Link

Easy peasy lemon squeezy...and never was such a voter verified, at all.

Not a single red flag would be raised and there would be no ‘evidence,’ at all.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Jill Stein and the Green Party are not Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. I know that conservatives like to PRETEND that all liberals are a like minded monolith, but it isn't true. Those are two separate liberal parties and they aren't exactly friendly with each other. CURRENTLY the Green Party and the Democrat Party's goals (get Trump disqualified from the Presidency) align, but that doesn't automatically mean they are 100% in cahoots.

Though as for the OP, good. I'm glad this recount is getting shut down. I'm tired or talking about the election and this recount thing was never going to change anything anyways. I was never under any illusions to get my hopes up about it.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

I would rather see a hand count that's done in public with full transparency. The machines cannot be trusted and neither can Hillary.

She can count my Two hands, Both waving her goodbye.
Trollop.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt


I don't really know why she wanted a hand recount to begin with but it is not happening.

It's a complete waste to do the recount, if it's not a hand recount. Since the whole point of the recount is to find possible fraud that only a hand recount would reveal.

The machines will produce the same result the machines produced before. Computer programs always return the exact same result. A computer program cannot verify itself. Machine must be audited by man, to find errors.

The Judge is probably a Republican who voted for Trump.

So, he sees no need to do this count at all.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: LifeMode

And how exactly would an illegal vote? Some people are lost in the infowar sauce. SMH. Keep trusting 16 year old tweeters. LMAO

Ummm...probably in a similar manner to how dead people keep voting...right...?

Am I right...?


YouSir

originally posted by: DAVID64
Jill who? Hillary who? Oh, you mean the losers.

These people just irritate the living hell out of me.

That's because they've been programmed to get something ... even when they lose.

Ahhhhahahahahahaha!!

Winning still feels wonderful ... because over the past 8 years my paycheck has fallen more than 30% behind.

And, when I get my 30% back, I wonder who is going to be left starving. I've grown pretty tired of not having what I've earned.