Jill Stein Addresses Recount Efforts: It Looked Like This Was a Hack-Riddled Election

[DonViejo]

Source: Mediaite

by Josh Feldman 9:32 pm, November 25th, 2016

Jill Stein took to Facebook Live tonight to address her efforts to get recounts going in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

We are standing up for a voting system that we deserve, she said, that we can have confidence in, that has integrity and security and that we know is now subject to tampering, malfeasance, hacking, and so on.

She referenced previous instances of hacking throughout 2016 to say that this looked like a hack-riddled election, claiming that our voting machines are very open to hacking.

Stein raised questions about the possibility that voting machines in all three states could be susceptible to hacking, though both [link:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/538] and New York Times [link:https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801211851954683904?ref_srctwsrc%5EtfwUpshot] have significantly pushed back on the idea. And one of the computer experts who spoke with the Clinton campaign [link:https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.rafwl618apublicly clarified what he actually thinks about the likelihood of hacking].

-snip-



Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/online/jill-stein-addresses-recount-efforts-it-looked-like-this-was-a-hack-riddled-election/

---

Video at link, above

[oberliner]

1. Weirdly she had no problem with the hacked HRC emails

And Wikileaks.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. Why not just say you don't want a recount?

All the rest of it is just BS.

[oberliner]

7. I want a recount

I don't want the Green Party enriching itself and continuing to fight against Democrats.

[bullimiami]

17. Well guess what, the democrats did not do it.

If it enhances the image of the Green so be it.

I've been looking for someone to do this for 16 years and crickets.

[oberliner]

20. What if Darrell Castle was the one asking for money for a recount?

Would you send money to The Constitution Party?

[ShakeWell]

27. Yes, I would give money to any candidate/party that promotes election integrity

I'm with many here at DU, Jill Stein and the efforts of the GP was one of the many factors that put us where we are today. However, the recount should happen and if you voted in the 2000 election, I would think you'd really want recounts now. Gore would've probably won with a strong recount effort and that could've meant saving millions of lives from being disrupted by the Bush/Cheney war machine.

So yeah, speculate on what she'll do with the money all you want, but as long as the recount is done, I could care less. If they make an inappropriate move with the recount or funds, it will destroy Stein and the GP for years to come.

Lastly, I hope that a recount might put on notice the governments/groups that wish to influence our elections in the future.

[Baitball Blogger]

33. "Lastly, I hope that a recount might put on notice the governments/groups that wish to influence

our elections in the future"

[oberliner]

38. Including Donald Trump?

If the situation was reversed and Trump was asking for a recount, you would send money to him and the Republican party?

[maddiemom]

54. I wouldn't send money, but I'd support the effort, nonetheless.

Oddly enough, though, this never seems to happen to the Republicans. Twice in sixteen years is ridiculous.

[oberliner]

90. Did you support his efforts in 2012?

He was calling for all sorts of investigations into that election.

[maddiemom]

103. I'm still waiting for his investigators to come back from Hawaii.

[womanofthehills]

58. Hello - since 2004 - huge voting irregularities in Republican held Wisconsin counties

from an old post on Daily Kos

"Waukesha voting irregularities go back to 2004...
Waukesha 2004, Bush v. Kerry.

Apparently in 2004 the polls in Waukesha were teeming with voters as the Waukesha County Clerk's office showed a 97.63% turn out. No, that's not a typo. 97.63%

Of the 236,642 registered voters in Waukesha on Nov 2, 2004 apparently 231,031 of them came out in a hint of rain and drizzle and did their civic duty.

Just to put this in perspective, Australia has compulsory (mandatory) voting and their turnout is 95%."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/4/11/965994/-

[philosslayer]

79. Thats not necessarily wrong

In 2012, in Philadelphia, 59 voting precincts recorded zero votes for Mitt Romney. 59 precincts. Would you call that a statistical impossibility?

If you accept that premise, then you can accept that 97.63% of people voted turned out in a given county.

[Demit]

91. Oh for heaven's sake, that's a totally different situation.

Precincts in Philadelphia (they're called divisions) are very small, just a few city blocks. Those 59 divisions were in black neighborhoods and had very, VERY few registered Republicans. Whoever tried to make out that zero votes for Romney was a "statistical improbability," & therefore suspect, was conveniently glossing over those two facts.

[PatSeg]

39. Yes

If we continue to do nothing about the issues with our elections, we will continue to have problems and they will only get worse. It is better that the Green Party do this, as it would look like Democrats are sore losers if they do it.

I don't know why Stein is doing this, but it needs to be done. She may just want the attention, but we want a recount. Whatever her motive, I support what she is doing.

[womanofthehills]

55. Stein does have a history of working for election reform in Mass

and election integrity is a prominent issue for the Green Party.

"Develop publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability: use verifiable paper ballots: and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results."

[PatSeg]

64. How can anyone argue with that

I think I like her as a champion for election integrity better than a presidential candidate.

Edit for grammar

[MADem]

66. She meanders out of Lexington every time there's an election she wants to get in on.

Then she does no campaigning but shoves her way on to the debate stage and eats up time that the Democrat could use. The Republican candidate then lumps the Dem in with the Green, and that's how we ended up with an asshole like Governor Mitt Romney. If you took her out of the mix in 2002, MA would have had her first elected female governor. She "contributed" just enough to deny a Democratic victory.

I think she's a horrible party leader--she makes no effort to push candidates on a national scale to participate in downticket and local races, and she only crawls out for Big Media races where she, of course, puts HERSELF front-and-center.

She's not quite as awful and self-serving as Nader...but that takes an ego of GINORMOUS proportions.

[FailureToCommunicate]

98. I gotta agree with you on this. BUT, I did contribute to the effort. If there is even a snowball's

chance in Hades that it might make a difference, our contribution would not be in vain.

Just wish it had been someone other that Stein the Loser.

[MADem]

99. If, by some miracle, it is proven that there was fraud beyond the usual

voter suppression/caging etc. that we always have to deal with, and it is proven that HRC won at least 2 of those contested states and has an even wider margin of "One person/one vote" victory than she already has, maybe the Electoral College will respect the actual will of the people.

Hey, the enemy of our enemy is our friend...if she's willing to take the lead, she'll end up being less vilified than she was at the start of this fiasco. I don't begrudge anyone who tossed a few bucks at her. It's not for "her" anyway, and if she grifted with the dough, that would be on her.

[FailureToCommunicate]

100. Forgot to add: that you said Stein occasionally "meanders out of Lexington" made me laugh out loud!

[MADem]

106. She never campaigns! Even when she ran for governor, she didn't kill herself.

She did just enough to deny the Dems, and didn't touch the GOP at all.

[chwaliszewski]

70. Maybe, just maybe...

she doesn't want Trump as president, either.

[PatSeg]

95. That certainly is more than

enough motivation. I'm glad she is doing this, as the Clinton campaign is now supporting the recounts. Probably wouldn't have happened without Stein.

[maddiemom]

49. Same here!

[Hortensis]

22. So they go temporarily to 5% from 1 between elections.

Being a hopeless outlier is obviously allowing her to do what the Democratic Party feels it cannot.

Be prepared for modest returns from this. I feel sure very high-end election theft took place somewhere, but it doesn't sound as if the experts feel any will be found this way.

This will hopefully be part of a new effort to ensure vote integrity. All elections should be audited.

[oberliner]

24. I want a detailed accounting of how the money raised is being spent

And I want all excess funds to be donated in full to an organization that isn't the Green Party.

[Hortensis]

28. "Want" away. :) She is hardly famous for her probity.

My $11 was donated in hopes that audits would take place.

I won't waste my time worrying that some might be spent foolishly and even destructively by foolish and destructive fringies. After all, I wouldn't trust her to work in my business or even to care for our cat while we were away. She is what she is.

[oberliner]

34. Exactly

Which is why I don't think Democrats ought to give her any money.

[Hortensis]

72. Too small a viewpoint. This is NOT about HER.

So you'd prefer no recount if she's doing it. Don't understand why kicking at her means so much more than honest counts to you, but then I've never given a hoot about the fringies, leaders and followers, who are always part of politics anywhere. Like the flip side of any coin, they are always with us.

[oberliner]

80. Would you give money to The Constitution Party?

Or, if Trump has lost the EC but won the popular vote and he asked for money for a recount, would you give money to Trump and/or the Republican Party?

My point is that the Green Party has been actively and aggressively doing everything in its power to prevent HRC from becoming president. I do not think we should be giving them money, unless there is a detailed accounting of exactly how and where the money is spent - and all additional funds are donated to an organization that is not the Green Party.

[Hortensis]

81. Point noted, Oberliner.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. I spent 75 dollars on candidates who didn't win.

I spent another $50 on a recount just to make sure I lost the first $75 fairly.

You see, if we don't ensure there is a fair election going on, people like me will not donate our small sums in the future, for any reason.

[oberliner]

42. If Trump lost the election and requested money for a recount

Would you consider donating money to him and/or the Republican Party in order to make sure the election was fair?

[Baitball Blogger]

46. Nope.

I know they are well-funded and better organized than we are. Our country survives and thrives on the concept of adversarial differences. Which means, that the other party has to do their share to push back, if there is a reason for it. That's why I do not like politicians who overly try to compromise with the other side. It dilutes the process.

[orleans]

111. OMG--- you keeping SAYING that!

they filed the petition in wisconsin on friday!!!

[oberliner]

112. It's a reasonable question

Presumably, if one believes in the integrity of the elections then one should apply that belief consistently.

[womanofthehills]

59. Strict Federal laws on this - So not to worry

[oberliner]

87. No, there are not

In fact, there has been no federal ruling on the subject of what happens to additional funds raised for a recount that aren't need to pay for said recount.

[womanofthehills]

25. The Green Party is not enriching itself - all the donated funds are separate & only for recount!!!!!

Green Party Recount Update: Lawyers, Activists, Organizers Get Going in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

That’s not correct, however. The party is operating under a 2006 Federal Elections Commission advisory opinion, 2006-24, that says the recount funds have to be segregated and used for that purpose. That ruling says:

“Money raised by the recount funds will not be used to pay for pre-election or Election Day expenses, such as administrative costs, get-out-the-vote activities or communication expenses. Instead, the recount funds will be used only to pay for 'expenses resulting from a recount, election contest, counting of provisional and absentee ballots and ballots cast in polling places,' as well as 'post-election litigation and administrative-proceeding expenses concerning the casting and counting of ballots during the Federal election, fees for the payment of staff assisting the recount or election contest efforts, and administrative and overhead expenses in connection with recounts and election contests' ('recount activities')."

The Green Party has have been taking donations via Jill Stein’s campaign webpage, which crossed the $5 million threshold about 1pm EST on Friday, and the state of Ohio Green Party. ReCountNow’s webpage is taking donations for volunteer activities, such as observing the count and precinct-based investigations.

http://www.alternet.org/green-party-recount-update-lawyers-activists-organizers-get-going-wisconsin-and-pennsylvania

[oberliner]

30. Yes, they are. And no the funds aren't separate and only for recount

In fact, the Green Party fundraising website itself explicitly says otherwise.

How will you use surplus funds?
If we raise more than what's needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.

[womanofthehills]

61. And I post this again from Raw Story -

"Money raised by the recount funds will not be used to pay for pre-election or Election Day expenses, such as administrative costs, get-out-the-vote activities or communication expenses. Instead, the recount funds will be used only to pay for 'expenses resulting from a recount, election contest, counting of provisional and absentee ballots and ballots cast in polling places,' as well as 'post-election litigation and administrative-proceeding expenses concerning the casting and counting of ballots during the Federal election, fees for the payment of staff assisting the recount or election contest efforts, and administrative and overhead expenses in connection with recounts and election contests' ('recount activities')."

http://www.alternet.org/green-party-recount-update-lawyers-activists-organizers-get-going-wisconsin-and-pennsylvania

[oberliner]

82. Read the entire document from which that is excerpted

I posted it elsewhere, but I would direct you to have a look.

Here is the relevant passage:

Question 4: May a Federal candidate or the State Party retain excess funds in
the recount funds for future elections, or must the funds be disposed of in some manner?

You inquire very broadly as to all possible uses of leftover recount funds
including, but not limited to, whether such funds must be disposed of or whether they
may be kept in a separate account for future elections of the same candidate or be
transferred to other political committees. The Commission concludes that this question is
speculative, and a definitive answer depends upon various contingencies that may or may
not occur. This question is, therefore, hypothetical.

Commission regulations explain
that requests posing a hypothetical situation, presenting a general question of
interpretation, or regarding the activities of third parties, do not qualify as advisory
opinion requests. 11 CFR 112.1(b). On this basis, the Commission expresses no opinion
regarding this question. If a Federal candidate or State Party in fact has excess funds in a
recount fund after the election, the candidate or party may wish to resubmit this question
for Commission consideration with specific proposed plans for the excess funds.

Link: http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/2006-24.pdf

See page 11 of the above pdf.

[womanofthehills]

52. Obviously you do not want a recount or you would not keep repeating stuff that is untrue

There are Federal laws Jill has to follow with this money - this money can only be used for recounts.

[oberliner]

86. There is nothing I have stated that is untrue

I would encourage you to read more closely the Federal Law you have cited elsewhere. It does not say what you (and Alternet) think it says. Namely, there is nothing stated with respect to what Jill and the Green Party needs to do with funds raised in excess of the costs of paying for the recount.

I have directed you to the relevant FEC documentation.

Here is the link again for anyone who is interested:

http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/2006-24.pdf

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

76. Exactly. n/t

[ananda]

4. But we all knew the Russians were behind that.

And investigations had already proved it.

But the voting system is a different matter.

It's going to take someone like Stein to expose it.

The Reeps and the Dems are not going to do it.

No one in the media is going to do it.

So we have to go with what we've got.

And I'll take Stein if that't what it takes!

[oberliner]

8. Stein isn't exposing anything other than gullible people who will give her money

Even though she fought like hell to destroy Hillary Clinton.

[Achilleaze]

13. Gullible people? Sounds like something Comrade Casino (R) would say...

[oberliner]

16. If Trump lost the election and requested money for a recount

Would you send him any?

[Blanks]

26. If it were a legitimate republican candidate...

And the polls were the way they were. I'd support a recount.

If democrats are winning and it is not the will of the people, that's just as big a problem.

If politicians can steal an election, it isn't long before they aren't responsive to the electorate.

[oberliner]

83. You would give money to the Republican Party

In order to support their fundraising for a recount?

[Blanks]

101. I'd support the effort...

As opposed to opposing it.

Not really the same as giving money, but yeah, it would be the right thing to do. I don't oppose everything the republicans do. Most things, but not everything.

I didn't give money to Stein either, but it is the right thing for her to do.

[oberliner]

102. I would hope to see a full accounting

of exactly how every dollar she received was spent, and I would hope that any funds raised not needed to pay for the recount will be donated to an organization that is not the Green Party.

If all that happens, I will withdraw any criticisms I have raised against her.

[Blanks]

104. I hope you pursue that...

I don't really care that much about what she does with the money (having not given any), but it would be best if she didn't use it for something else.

That's a separate issue as far as I'm concerned.

[cstanleytech]

14. Be that as it may I think a recount is warranted if atleast to assure the american people

that the Russians didnt hack the voting.

[oberliner]

15. Fair enough

But I would like to see an accounting of exactly where every dollar that was raised by this effort is going.

And I would like to see every dollar raised in excess of what is needed for the recount to be donated, in full, to an organization that is not devoted to destroying Democrats (as the Green Party is).

[cstanleytech]

19. I'm in agreement with you there and furthermore any money left unspent on

the recount should be donated to a charity as you said.

[womanofthehills]

32. You really think there is going to be money left over with all the fees??

All the money - in total - will be used for election reform. If by any wild chance there is any money left over, that will also be used for election reform.

[cstanleytech]

35. Probably not but I would hope if there was any money left over after the recounts are done that

it would be donated.

[womanofthehills]

48. By law, the money was requested for election recount and it needs to be used only for that cause

and Jill has said that any money not used for election recount will be used for ELECTION REFORM.

It's not money that can just be donated to any charity because it was raised for a specific cause.

[cstanleytech]

68. Thats confusing, if its only supposed to be used for the recount how could she then use the money

for election reform?

[oberliner]

84. She says "promoting election reform"

Which is something she claims the Green Party itself does by its very existence.

Thus, using the funds for Green Party activities could constitute such promotion.

[Demit]

94. Exactly.

You could drive a truck thru the loophole that vague wording creates.

Jill Stein could very well intend it to get herself into debates next time, or to obtain increased federal funds for her party, by working to "reform" the election rules that govern these things.

[womanofthehills]

60. Your hate for Jill Stein overrides your desire to recount the votes.

Very sad!!

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

77. My sentiments exactly. n/t

[oberliner]

85. If Trump lost the election and requested money for a recount

Would you donate money to Trump and/or the Republican party for such an effort?

Or would your feelings about Donald Trump prevent you from giving him your money (even if he claimed it is to make sure the vote count is accurate) ?

[kacekwl]

69. Elections in this country

are seriously F'ed up. We need a standardized system that is easily verified and UN-hackable. Why is that so hard. If Stein can help in any way I say proceed with my blessing. No one else seems to care.

[Beartracks]

105. Emails aren't votes. n/t

[yallerdawg]

2. A good portion of those Jill Stein voters...

could have given Hillary the election.

Then we wouldn't be going ape-shit about hacked voting machines - would we?

[ananda]

5. So you're ok with voter suppression and hacking ..

.. as long as your candidate wins?

I'm not.

I wanted Sanders to win the primaries, and I
wanted Clinton to win the general.

But most of all I want all the crazy gerrymandering,
voter suppression, and Reep intimidation to end!

[yallerdawg]

10. Your solutions apply before the election.

So does mine.

[bigmonkey]

53. Easy to say now!

Before the election, you would have been called out for discouraging people from voting by questioning the reliability of the voting systems. For those of us concerned about this, it seems that "never" is the only time some critics want to address this.

I support addressing it, whenever that is possible. The voting systems should be transparent and auditable, and routinely, randomly audited.

[yallerdawg]

57. We have elections all the time, not just every four years.

Each state, county, community has processes to verify election results.

We have elections so close they are determined - literally - by a coin flip.

Where would we be if every "loser" screamed fraud?

[MadLinguist]

62. the point is, Yeller, that a voter just doesn't know what the vote counts

are when coin-toss solutions are enacted. So to ensure public confidence, routine random audits ought to be the norm, just part of the process. Then there would be an actual quantitative response to whoever may scream, insinuate, or quietly announce that there had been *election fraud*. If we had this kind of process in place, we would also have something to point to in response to GOP claims about "massive voter fraud". If voter fraud were as pervasive enough to warrant the drastic voter ID laws, routine random audits would reveal it. As it is now, just about any assertion about vote counting problems just looks like wild-ass guessing.

[Raster]

9. Yes, but those Jill Stein voters HAD EVERY RIGHT to vote for the candidate of their choice...

...Just as You and I did.

Our challenge and way forward as Democrats IS NOT to limit their ability to cast their ballot for their candidate of choice, but to field candidates that will be the candidate of their choice.

[yallerdawg]

12. They put Corrupt Trump in office.

That is the result of their choice.

Some celebrate it.

Some say, "OMG! What have we done? Election was rigged!"

[Raster]

41. they "helped" put corrupt tRump in office...

...other factors, other voters... more than just one reason or one block of voters.

And again, this is a representative Democracy. Everyone gets to vote for the candidates of their choice.

[womanofthehills]

36. Hate for Jill Stein seems to override counting the votes

I just don't get it. Let's face it - many on here do not want the votes counted. So you are ok with hacked machines?

[dhill926]

44. I know......crazy.....

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

78. Bizarre. What is there to lose....and just may result in the election overturned.

At least Jill gave it a shot. Recall last time when we all 'went along."

[oberliner]

89. The election won't be overturned

Jill is taking advantage of people who think that it might be (even though she knows it won't be and has even said that she does not want HRC to be president under any circumstance).

[AgadorSparticus]

118. You keep saying that Jill Stein is taking advantage of people like it is a fact.

It is NOT.

People know EXACTLY what they are doing when they donated to her. And she has already filed for Wisconsin. I think most people just want to know what happened. I don't think anyone has donated with the sole intention that the election will be overturned. So what is the harm?

[oberliner]

119. It is a fact

She has raised over six million dollars and has acquired hundreds of thousands of names and addresses for future Green Party solicitations.

People don't know exactly what they are doing when they donated to her.

For instance, she at first said that lawyer fees would total one million. Then when money came in quickly, she changed it to 2-3 million. Neither she, nor those who donated to her, have any idea what those lawyers fees actually are.

She said she was going to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

She cannot actually file for a recount in Pennsylvania.

I wonder how many people who donated to her know that fact.

[AgadorSparticus]

120. Her legal fees will be more than 3 million. Depends on how far this goes.

But that is the whole point. We'll see how far this goes. Her website had a preliminary accounting posted. I certainly don't expect it to be detailed at this point.

It goes without say that they have your name and info for future solicitations. Every transaction, retail or otherwise opens you up for future solicitations. That is why I unsubscribe from many emails. And the green party already tried to solicit me. I said no.

While I understand your intense dislike of Jill Stein (I really don't like her either), I don't think she will take the money and run. That is bad for business. It will be their death knell as it will NEVER be forgotten. I doubt they will compromise themselves for a measly 7million. The green party stands to benefit greatly from this producing some results--whether that be just uncovering whatever information they find.

Again, it is NOT a fact that donors for a recount will get bamboozled by her. Not when she has already filed for Wisconsin.

[yallerdawg]

45. The votes have been counted.

The totals are being certified. Corrections are being made.

The outcome has been determined.

It hurts to lose.

Jill Stein has an agenda that is not for the benefit of Hillary, the Democratic Party, or the American political system.

The 'creative speculation' regarding 'hacking voting machines' and 'statistical anomalies' is fringe stuff.

The people who voted for Jill Stein "fixed" this election. There's your conspiracy.

[lonestarnot]

50. Isn't that a fucking pip.

[elleng]

71. There's a lot of that around here, isn't there?

and even more upsetting, a lot of hate for ANYone NOT 'sanctioned' by tptb.

[oberliner]

88. I'm sure everyone on DU would be lining up to send Donald Trump donations

If he had lost the election under similar circumstances and was calling for funds to pay for a recount.

[world wide wally]

92. Alright. Jill Stein is a scammer. But even if she is, I don't care.

Chances are that when Trump is coronated we won't have to worry about a Green Party, or a Democratic Party or any kind of party at all. Fascism is not exactly election friendly.
Yes, I wish she and Johnson hadn't run at all, but I wished that Nader hadn't either. If I lose my $11, then so be it. That will not be my biggest problem.

[oberliner]

93. Understood

I totally get where you are coming from. It's nice that there will be a recount. It's annoying that Jill Stein is making money off of it.

[orleans]

113. it's even MORE annoying that clinton didn't just do this

and we all had to hope stein got enough money together in time and made the filing deadline!

[True_Blue]

109. ITA

I don't know what Jill Stein's motives are and personally I don't care. Right now she's the only one questioning the election results and pursuing a recount and that's all that matters.

[Arazi]

110. Yup. The blind hatred of Jill Stein (and Bernie) here is irrational

[Afromania]

6. Sometimes

When you look into the abyss the abyss looks back. Well, she looked into the abyss and Donald Trump looked back. Then he promptly tried to grab her by the hoo-haa.

[Achilleaze]

11. The Russian-Republican cabal is trying to cheat America again

[asuhornets]

18. Jill Stein caused Hillary Clinton to lose..Now Jill wants a recount...n/t

[pnwmom]

21. In the original cached version, she says they need only 2 - 2.5 M,

and that they need the money by Friday to file for audits of all three states.

It doesn't say anywhere that they'll be asking for more money later. And it doesn't even mention attorney's fees.

The next version says they'll need $1 M for attorney's, but the current page says they'll need $2-3 M for attorney's fees. But even assuming it's the stated filing fees of $2.1 M, plus $3 M attorneys (seems very high) -- that still only adds up to $5.1 M, and yet now they want a total of $7 M.

It's looking like a giant slush fund.

http://web.archive.org/web/20161123234501/https:/jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

Election Integrity depends on YOU! - Recounts in MI, PA, & WI

The Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign is launching an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. With your help, we are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals.

This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! We need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we’re turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.

Your immediate support is crucial - Please donate now and share widely.

We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform.

[womanofthehills]

40. OMG! you are so stuck on 2 million - posting about it over and over and over

Read the Raw Story report - there are laws about using money donated for specific purposes and Jill is following them to a T. The Federal Elections Advisory Committee has rules about the money raised - the funds legally cannot be used for anything other than the recount.

Wisconsin doesn't even have the final total on what they are charging for the recount yet? I'm sure Jill will be needing more money than the 7 million and will have to ask for more donations.

Look at the LARGER PICTURE -

“We’ll point to the fact that there are certain [electronic voting] systems in the state of Wisconsin that are being used, which have been proven to be vulnerable to being tampered with or being hacked. And the state of California banned the use of those systems, but Wisconsin, with some restrictions, still uses them,” he said. “So that’s point one. Given the fact that those systems are still in use, it’s important too make sure that we verify the vote.”

The other systems, the paper ballot systems, we’ve determined, are, in fact, showing a discrepancy between the jurisdictions where the paper ballots have been used and the touch-screen machines have been used,” he continued, referring to different margin of victory depending on the voting technology.

http://www.alternet.org/green-party-recount-update-lawyers-activists-organizers-get-going-wisconsin-and-pennsylvania

[pnwmom]

63. And you're ignoring the fact that her first donation posting

was at the very least misleading.

That 7 million could have bought 1400 optical scan voting machines for swing state counties that are still using DRE's. That would probably be more useful than this recount which is unlikely to change the final outcome.

[bigmonkey]

73. Feel free to start a fundraising drive for that.

Sounds like a good project. I would contribute.

We are, however, where we are now, and Stein and the Greens are virtually the only entities with standing to get this to happen, since the Democratic establishments seems to think it's politically unwise to assure that we have fair elections.

[pnwmom]

74. We've never had a recount overturn an election with margins as big as these.

There's always a first time, I suppose.

[bigmonkey]

75. Two levels: 1 - this election's outcome; 2 - voting system reliability

On the principle that one can do more than one thing at a time, going through this process addresses both levels one and two. Effectively addressing level two will allow people to focus on actual politics, so it's a good thing regardless of how this election's outcome is decided.

We've also never had such a popular vote vs. electoral vote discrepancy either. This is not a normal election.

[pnwmom]

107. It won't be a good thing if this recount gives a false assurance

that the system is better than it really is.

As the computer scientists have pointed out, some hacking can occur and leave no traces. What about Philadelphia, e.g., which uses machines with no paper trail to be checked? So they check everything that can be checked and say that everything looks okie-dokie. And they proclaim that everything's fine, and people believe it.

Why will we be better off then? Won't that reduce the pressure on the system to replace all the DRE machines with machines that produce a paper record?

[bigmonkey]

108. My feeling is that this raises awareness, at least.

Leaving the situation unexamined would, I think, encourage anyone who actually is trying to undermine the process, by making them think there is no oversight at all. The more people are aware of the weaknesses in the system, the better. Not many, I think, would be lulled back to sleep by a false claim of "all ok now".

The situation that should obtain is, for federal elections, a transparent and verifiable voting infrastructure, with random, routine audits. The more people are aware that we don't currently have anything like that, the better.

[womanofthehills]

96. The 2 million will probably not even cover Wisconsin

I don't care if she keeps raising the amt she needs - $7 million will probably not even be enough.

How do you know the swing states want machines than can't be hacked?

[steventh]

23. Jill Stein will be a hero if she uncovers fraud.

She will be a super hero if the result of her efforts give us President Hillary Clinton. I'm not yet ready to give up hope. Even if it doesn't result in reversal of the wretched election results, I applaud Jill Stein for the attempt. It's better than media and DNC sitting back and doing nothing to mount a challenge.

[colsohlibgal]

31. Indeed

Any port in a storm right? If the Democratic Party continues being afraid to challenge anything from Al Gore till now I am thrilled anyone finally decided to fight. This looks like fairly obvious fraud.

She is doing this because the democrats seem to just accept being screwed as the natural order of things.

[Nay]

47. Thank you! People are giving Stein shit as she comes forward and does the one

thing that the craven Democrats have refused to do over the last 20 years? And then these same people wonder why Dem turnout and enthusiasm is so lackluster at election time? Good God. The mind boggles.

The Democratic Party will continue to lose if it refuses to fight for itself and for the people it represents.

[ucrdem]

29. The hackers stole votes from Stein too.

RCP pre-election WI polls show Clinton at about 47%,Trump at about 40%, and Stein at 2%. Post election, Trump is at 48, Clinton at 47, and Stein at 1. So there might be a touch of enlightened self-interest at play here, especially if Green Party future ballot status is tied to getting a certain percentage of the vote, as it is in CA.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

[MiniMe]

43. This all reminds me of Bev and the black box voting

What happened to all the money she collected on gofundme?

[lonestarnot]

51. That one never counted any votes.

[bigmonkey]

56. Irrelevant

It's practically engaging in disinformation to bring her up this way, in this context. The integrity of the voting systems is an entirely separate issue from the behavior of any particular person. You can't really be suggesting, can you, that wanting reliable, verifiable voting systems is "too fringy"?

[MADem]

67. Really. nt

[orleans]

114. blood under the bridge at this point

i'm sure you've heard by now
stein made the wisconsin filing deadline on friday
as of saturday the clinton campaign is joining in on the fun of the recount

[bucolic_frolic]

65. I keep hearing how the populist won

but Donald J. Trump is as corporatist and mainstream as you can get

Money won. Lying won. Anti-democracy won.

[TomCADem]

97. Think The Russian Hacking, Comey Letter and Media's False Equivalency...

...were the biggest problems. Also, why is Jill Stein leading the effort? Her silence on Russia's role makes her a strange champion.

[DonCoquixote]

115. broken clock

but right twice daily, and that time is now.

[astral]

116. Nobody's talking about electronic ballot boxes,

Electronic ballot boxes are not re-countable. Any that were 'back-doored' were altered with all evidence of altering being removed immediately afterwards.

Did a lot of states, or at least precincts, opt to go paper ballot to avoid this controversy? Does anybody know which votes were electronic and which were paper ballot?

Do we care how many ballots were cast by unregistered voters? Do we know if voters cast multiple ballots? If voters were paid to be bussed across state lines to cast multiple votes, do we know who they voted for in the privacy of the voting booth?

Do we count only the ballots (where we can count them at all) in states where Hillary lost?

If Trump had lost would we approve of a recount of only the states where he had lost? If he had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college would we have approved of a recount effort at all?

Is there a wish here to revert to the popular vote not the electoral college? If so, is that a wish for a permanent change regardless of which states control the outcome of elections with that change, year after year?

We have to have better security in the voting process, and, we all have to agree on what the rules are and to follow the same set of rules. Who is a registered voter? If we wanted undocumented citizens to vote this year, do we always want that?

The evidence of vote manipulation wasn't one-way, to be sure. I would wish our President-Elect to be treated with the same respect regardless of which side lost the vote. Give him a chance to succeed or fail before you crucify him and be there to help him run the country by making your specific wishes known and the reasons for them.

[BigDemVoter]

117. Even if this were the most honest election in American history,

I would still push this meme, as it certainly hits the Yam right where it hurts.