Federal judge ends Michigan presidential recount

[FBaggins]

Source: Click On Detroit

A federal judge has put an end to the recount of presidential votes in Michigan.

You can read the full order that put an end to the recount here.

Judge Mark Goldsmith lifted the order Wednesday that had allowed Michigan's recount to begin, effectively ending it.

The recount started at noon Monday after Goldsmith ruled in favor of Green Party candidate Jill Stein's request to accelerate the recount.



Read more: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/federal-judge-ends-michigan-presidential-recount

---

Link for order

http://media.clickondetroit.com/document_dev/2016/12/07/Stein%20decision%2012-07-16_8488350_ver1.0.pdf

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. Maybe it's time for

the good people of Michigan to take to the streets, en masse.

[Nancyswidower]

2. And do what? This is a Judge of Obama's picking...confirmed 89 zip in a Democratic

controlled Senate.....eat our own constantly?
Let's have an uprising against our own...we just got an ass whooping...now we turn internally...

[LaydeeBug]

22. Democrat controlled Senate, eh?

Thanks for showing...

[Nancyswidower]

41. Yes...The Senate confirmed Goldsmith on June 21, 2010

[LaydeeBug]

42. That would DemocratIC Senate, which was the point you missed. You're welcome.

nt

[Nancyswidower]

44. An auto correct on my phone..I get the Nit you are picking...I fixed it..

[Peigan68]

23. Democrat controlled Senate? Democrat? nt.

[Nancyswidower]

40. Yes...The Senate confirmed Goldsmith on June 21, 2010

And I fixed the phone auto correct...

[wordpix]

45. I guess the republics voted for Goldsmith, too

He didn't get it

[golfguru]

85. LOL love that word "republics"

[Demsrule86]

43. Democrats know about the Senate...so why don't you?

[Travis_0004]

3. Maybe Hillary should have filed for the recount

I don't know why Hillary never filed for the recount herself.

[golfguru]

5. Because Hillary is not stupid

Hillary knows history of statewide recounts and maximum deviation percentage from electi9on day results. Stein shrewdly pocketed millions collected from hopeful donors. IIRC she has done the same thing before.

[Land Shark]

17. Having done post-election litigation myself, your comments are disappointing

Election law is a rigged game of sorts, 100% made by election winners who do not want their victories questioned. Ever. A person that tries nevertheless to at least get a peek through the curtains of election secrecy only to face the inevitable blizzard of lawsuits, bad press and millions in costs is a hero.

There is zero evidence to support the results as certified. Literally no human being alive knows if the results are correct or not and recounts won't FULLY settle the question, especially since Michigan is excluding over 600 of the worst precincts from recounts, and then claiming that the recount doesn't show much of anything so far. Wow.

All election results are completely and utterly inherently uncertain when done by machines. Doing nothing about that is hardly admirable. Doing something is risky, but not fraudulent.

The giant fraud here is that the government is set up to secure our rights (decl. Of Independence) including specifically the right to alter or abolish that government (decl. Of Independence). Any system of computerized vote counting is so easily rigged by any insider that we don't have the right to kick the bums out of office IF THEY ARE CROOKS, because crooks cheat. That is what they do. And it is child's play to rig a computer you are the admin ofor, like election officials with electronic voting machines.

I'm very disappointed in anyone who calls the investigation of electronic voting fraudulent as opposed to the voting system itself, which deliberately keeps evidence hidden upon which a rational person could form an evidence-based belief that the reported results were accurate.

[elleng]

24. Thanks for saying this, Land Shark.

(NOT thanks for the truth of it.)

[oldtime dfl_er]

36. yes

this.

[Hortensis]

51. Unaudited elections aren't okay. But H's campaign

had experts combing over the elections in many states. In these that hit the news they came right out and said they simply did not find the kind of red flags that would justify their filing for audits, much less that would make reversals possible.

They also know that the costs of challenges are far more than just a few millions of dollars diverted from where they might do more good.

I'm a little surprised at how many people are prepared to elect a person for president yet also quick to assume that same person is ignorant, incompetent, and gutless. This particular person is a scrapper who doesn't give up, for those who've already forgotten.

[Land Shark]

52. They DO NOT AND DID NOT have evidence to comb over.

Not much of it, to be sure

[Land Shark]

53. No forensics, no ballots is no evidemce.

[Hortensis]

56. Yes, they did. You might read their statements of

what they looked at. Brief summaries, but they knew what they were doing, and the specific indicators they were looking for. AND a larger picture that results could be fit into to make the right kind of difference.

[Land Shark]

57. Where is this "evidence" and why is it not available? Brief summaries, rofl

Unless you are an expert or at least trained in election forensics you are in a poor position to evaluate the meaningfulNess of anything done.

[Hortensis]

58. Wondering at this point who you voted for and why.

Would ANYONE be competent and conscientious enough to meet your standards if not even H and her team operate at your required level?

I'm not naive, and as part of that I always assume, because I know, that people in high-level jobs or doing high-level work know a great deal about it that I do not. To understate the matter tremendously.

[Land Shark]

60. The main competent people are involved in supporting the recount efforts now

Eithe privately or publicly. I also support the recounts but only with open eyes that it is deliberately made very hard to impossible to get transparency / evidence but still important to try.

Don't know if anyone considers me an expert, but I write encyclopedia articles on election law and election fraud, litigated the CA50 congressional election contest in 06, co-authored a study that actually found evidence of election fraud, attached that to a lawsuit and sued to get rid of the touch screens, and when they did the court of appeals declared my case moot since I won (but I wanted the countys $6million back to taxpayers)

My experience is that almost nobody even really knows what to look for. So there isn't much chance they will find it. If they really want led to search they would reach out a lot more to compare notes.

I don't think anyone can be considered a big game fraud hunter capable of the type of opinion you describe if they've never bagged anything, and are famously not very keen to try to do that either.

Was on KPFK and other stations yesterday discussing the recount litigation in Michigan. See
http://bradblog.com/?p=11953 I can definitely understand a risk averse person saying it's not worth pursuing due to.cost expense and difficulty.

But nobody has proof at the outset of a case, and no one can rule it out at the outset of the case. And it's crazy that peoplease try to lay down a proof requirement as a prerequisite to getting discovery or a recount.

[Land Shark]

61. By supporting I don't mean to imply any official role in the recounts

Supporting them financially, blogging, etc.

[Hortensis]

62. Impressive resume offered, sounds like fun, BUT

my understanding from reading what many experts have said is that the info gathering and analysis by the campaigns themselves (or for them by plutocrat-funded shadow operations) is the best available courtesy of those billion-dollar budgets campaigns have now. Pollsters and political statisticians and scientists who are not among those inside one of the campaigns can't begin to compete.

Again, though, a whole lot of considerations go into these decisions, not just numbers. I am simply not the kind of person who'd believe a candidate would be a good, competent president and then turn around and decide in frustration that the same candidate would be too stupid and feckless to deal with this situation responsibly and competently.

Have a nice evening.

[Land Shark]

64. "Defeated" candidates are in a poor position to defend democracy; nothing against the candidate

They are made to pay an extraordinarily high price as a "sore loser." They are or should be exhausted, they better not have much bank left, and the legal deck is stacked against transparency. Election contests have arcane, nonsensical laws, are full of procedural traps for the unwary, there will be a blizzard of litigation from all sides, and the skill sets needed differ substantially from campaigns, and they're never preparing to lose and fight, especially in this campaign. So I am sorry, but there is no way the Democratic campaign was ready for THIS, or had staff that knew their stuff. None of the people who would be good at it would make good Presidents.

So there are a zillion reasons to avoid the fight that have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. And knowing how hard it always is, I don't blame them for not wanting to lead.

But democracy can't or should not be left defenseless.

On the strength of that the public won't accept the above kinds of reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the election. So they make a statement that is over-interpreted, saying that they have reviewed the evidence and find nothing much to proceed on. Which is I'm sure a true statement given the scope of what they could have at that point, and given all of the best evidence is certainly not in their possession and it would be shocking if somehow it were.

These guys are good, but not at everything. Different skill set entirely. So respect for leadership skills and so forth really doesn't answer the question. And if they really have evidence I'd pay to see that. They certainly don't have what the Stein recount is being denied: forensic evidence, ballots, etc. And I'd be the first to say that given the scope of a recount it doesn't cover everything, it won't for example detect a traditional stuffed ballot box.

[Hortensis]

65. Thanks for the discussion. I've often wondered,

angrily, why questionable elections are not challenged more and harder. Surely there is a duty to not allow that kind of victory? Especially with so many incidents by mainly one party against another.

Back before 2010, with the census and gerrymandering districts as a goal, players behind the GOP identified specific congressional districts among hundreds needed to be taken to take over the game board. I don't for a moment buy the rationale that it would be "too hard" to rig some specific districts in this election. Not for the people who engineered that tremendous victory . Do you suspect vote manipulation as a significant factor this time? For years I assumed it could make all the difference.

Now I suspect we were almost entirely defeated again by intensive dissemination of fake news as it's being called. Psychological warfare with the electorate in general the enemy to be defeated. What they've done for decades intensified tremendously this time. Lies blanketing the nation close to the speed of light that once out can't be erased from a nation's psyche. A big plan in development for years, Wickileaks and many dozens of other non-traditional sources, agents working within the MSM, including the AP, within the FBI, social media and on and on. Russia aware and playing also. The wild swings in the polls were a warning. The infowar ratcheted up in the last weeks. My guess is Comey really didn't want to "out" himself, but ultimately her strength required it.

It's a segue away from audits and recounts, but what do you think?

[Land Shark]

66. Anyone planning on stealing an election would go HEAVY NEGATIVE, here's bottom line

Because it leaves a gazillion seeming reasons to accept the election result. A million ways to "read the political tea leaves" and justify it.

One needs to step back and consider just how tenuous and speculative reading the political tea leaves truly is. It's just making stuff up, with the nod going to the writer who appears to achieve best plausibility. But plausibility is not proof of causation of course!

Given the secret vote counts and radical nontransparency, reading the tea leaves developed. The name itself is a nod to its dubious, almost occult nature. We try to append some statistics to it but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of it.

In a SELF-RESPECTING democracy that was serious about ensuring that We the people are in charge and our will as expressed in elections is what rules, every election would be suspect until proven legitimate. Of course our present situation is nearly the opposite of that, with magic results on election night accorded a mandatory nearly irrefutable presumption of correctness despite there being no publicly available evidence to support it. And then proof is demanded At the Outset of a case as a condition of proceeding, a demand made in no other kind of legal case at all, since cases are first to make allegations based on information AND belief, collect discovery evidence, and then have a trial or other proof process. So obviously there is an intense series of deterrents placed to prevent any election detection efforts.

Without something like a recount, election officials can.not prove that a vote count of any kind even occurred. The only thing we know occurred was at least a rough ballot count. But no evidence exists of a proper count whatsoever on the day after the election.

But back to your question, yes the fake news and the Comey stuff is plausible reading of the political tea leaves. But there will ALWAYS be such plausible readings of the leaves.

Election results are little more than a political Rorschach test. So people will see lots of stuff in there and have endless fruitless debates until they get tired or give up.

What does a stolen election look like? It looks pretty much exactly like a real election. The only exception would be totally clumsy overly aggressive steals, like a result of 90-10. But why would anyone do that when the whole point of fraud is to pass off a fake as the real thing?

Given there was even the benefit of surprise in the result here, if people can accept THIS election with this level of surprise, they will without a doubt accept every stolen election that comes along. There are no limits then.

We have to demand that the will of the people be proven up, and meaningfully so, in order to be a self-respecting democracy. It should not depend upon whether we believe it stolen or not. Election results are the only legitimate voice of the only legitimate rulers, the People, so we must absolutely insist on the obedience of the government and Election officials to prove the legitimacy of the result.

And if it seems at all unseemly to demand obedience here, then one is forgetting that when voting we are acting in our sovereign capacity to delegate OUR POWER to the government so we the voters count, we're in charge. If.it seems unseemly then we're forgetting they are.called public SERVANTS for a reason, because voters are supposed to be the masters and government the slave to serve our interests and guarantee our rights.

The Founders were convinced that if government is not the servant slave, then the people are. If it seems unseemly to demand that the government prove the election result completely (not just a recount which doesn't detect all errors or frauds), then we are not fit to RULE a country, we are only fit for that other, uh, lesser role. The slave.

Every other day except election day we have to obey the law just like in a dictatorship. Our true liberty is in choosing our rulers and in choosing some laws (Referenda). And.again, it can not be overstated or related often enough, if we can not or do not demand obedience and transparency HERE in elections, the government will serve us NOWHERE.

[Hortensis]

69. "...every election would be suspect until proven legitimate."

Of course our present situation is nearly the opposite of that, with magic results on election night accorded a mandatory nearly irrefutable presumption of correctness despite there being no publicly available evidence to support it. And then proof is demanded at the Outset of a case as a condition of proceeding,"

Definitely, and the rest too. Very little is sacred to me, but the vote is. Government of, by, and for the people. A huge revelation to me was the finding that many people simply do not believe in that. The authoritarianism of two of our candidates this year appeals instead. Nice talking.

[Land Shark]

71. Yes, very nice to talk to you and come to agreement too. :) nt

[golfguru]

74. Excuse me, but it is a RECOUNT, and NOT an investigation into fraud.

I am 100% in favor of 100% honest elections. If they can hack into DNC emails,
you bet they can hack into electronic voting machines. Most cases there is no paper trail.
I want 100% paper trail of all electronic machines. The electronic machines are fine for
getting fast vote counts. But without a certifiable paper trail it is all hocus pocus.

[golfguru]

92. Electronic voting is fine so long as...

there is a verifiable paper trail.

[Ford_Prefect]

18. You repeat the lies of old about Stein with no proof. The payment to Wisconsin was no myth.

I take you would also object if the vote recount succeeded?

[golfguru]

72. Florida 2000 was the mother of all recounts

Many more voters than MI, WI and perhaps even PA.
The recount process was 24-7 on TV news.
What was the deviation? 0.01%?

[golfguru]

73. You do not need proof for what is obvious

Sky is blue.
Sun is warm.
Ice is cold.
No proof needed!
If Stein keeps millions from hopeful Hillary backers, it is obvious Stein was
in it for her own gain. That is exactly what is happening. I need no further proof.
But may be you need proof for everything you disagree with.

[Ford_Prefect]

78. Multiple state and federal court challenges and you say she was ONLY in it for the money

Deal with the truth before you exaggerate.

You'd not accept any meaningful change in the count as worthwhile?

It is OBVIOUS that trump won a clean race?

You don't have to like Stein or her platform to endorse the idea that every vote ought to be counted. Hillary did.

[golfguru]

82. Stein was ruled to have no standing in Michigan because

Stein has zero chance of winning Michigan.
Hillary should have filed for recounts, not Stein.

[golfguru]

86. Stein has zero chance to win WI, MI, PA. Hillary does.

MI supremes are correct in that Stein has no standing to force recount.
Hillary most certainly does.

[Ford_Prefect]

87. You haven't answered the question.

[golfguru]

89. Just observe how many millions remain in Stein's bank account

after the recount in WI is over. That would be OBVIOUS proof of Stein's intentions.
MI & PA are already no go because Stein has no standing based on her extremely low % votes received..

There were what half a dozen candidates running for president, and most received less than 1% votes except HRC & DJT. I would hate to see future elections tied in knots by these marginal candidates.

[golfguru]

93. Stein collected $7 M, spent $1.5 M in WI, she is richer by

$5.5 Million. Easiest millions she ever made.
There will be no recount in PA & MI?

[JudyM]

26. How do you personally know? This was an extremely close race in MI and in Clinton-heavy areas

there were dozens of machines that were not properly functioning. Why the hell not insist on a recount?

[golfguru]

75. Recount of faulty machines without a paper trail is...

just as faulty. If a machine was faulty on election day, how do we know
the true result during a recount? Main problem is there is no paper trail
to go back and authenticate vote counts.

[JudyM]

79. Those machines had paper trails, though, didn't they, golfguru.

[golfguru]

80. Not in all states!

[JudyM]

81. Talking MI.

[golfguru]

83. MI result is 100% useless to Hillary without PA

MI Supremes ruled Stein had zero chance to win, and stopped the recount.
Hillary had eminent chance to win, AND SHOULD HAVE FILED for recount.

[JudyM]

90. Without question. Irresponsible to more than 1/2 the country, is the nicest to be said for her lack

of action.

[wordpix]

46. she was letting Jill carry the water and now it's HRC's turn, let's see if she'll move

She either sees an opening to WIN or not. I would fight if I were her

[golfguru]

84. Agreed 100%

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

55. Well, sure. Clinton's the only one who could benefit from a recount.

There is no counting system that could give the victory to the Green party.

[Augiedog]

4. It's getting time for pitch forks and torches across the country

[golfguru]

6. from Twitter

https://twitter.com/pjcolbeck/status/806324631389011968

[bdamomma]

14. Watch Democracy Now

https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/12/6


This may motivate us all, this up to us.

[KewlKat]

7. will there be a refund of some sort since they didn't get to complete the recount?

Someone better figure out how to fix the problems that were discovered due to the recount in the Detroit area before 2018.

[riversedge]

8. Stein "Our campaign will seek immediate relief in Michigan's Supreme Court ...."

It is not over yet!

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/federal-judge-ends-michigan-presidential-recount

You can read the Stein campaign's statement below:

"We are deeply disappointed in Judge Goldsmith's ruling today, which gives deference to partisan state judges in Michigan who are attempting to block the state's recount simply because of the person who made the request, without regard for the integrity of Michigan's electoral system. The history of this country is one where federal courts step in to protect the constitutional voting rights of all Americans, especially when they are under attack in the states. Well today, they are under brutal attack. Backed by Michigan Republicans, Donald Trump -- who himself has repeatedly alleged widespread voter fraud and a "rigged election" -- suddenly sees no need for a routine verification of the democratic process in Michigan. His efforts to suppress the vote count is a stunning about-face, even by Trump's own standards.

"Recounts are not about politics or parties; they are about our democracy. They are, as Judge Goldsmith said himself Monday, a way to ensure the 'fundamental right to vote, and to have that vote conducted fairly and counted accurately, which is the bedrock of our nation.'" By stopping the recount in Michigan, Trump and Michigan Republicans are explicitly stripping the constitutional rights of Michigan voters straight from under them. Worse, they are continuing to undermine confidence in the American political system by denying voters a chance to be reassured that the election results were accurate.

"But make no mistake, we are not backing down from this fight -- a fight to protect the hard-fought, hard-won civil and voting rights of all Americans. Our campaign will seek immediate relief in Michigan's Supreme Court to ensure the recount that is already underway in all Michigan counties continues. With so many irregularities in Michigan -- including more than 75,000 under-votes, many in urban areas, and widespread carelessness, and perhaps interference, with preserving ballots -- there is a real possibility the rights of voters in Michigan may have been suppressed during this election. We need this recount to ensure the fairness, accuracy and integrity of the vote."

[Crepuscular]

10. Waste of time

The Michigan Supreme Court has a 5 - 2 Republican Majority, I highly doubt they are going to over-rule the Appellate Court, which ruled 3 - 0 against Stein.

[Aimee in OKC]

12. FWIW ... from the article

Stein's campaign announced Wednesday night it plans to appeal the ruling to the Michigan State Supreme Court.

The Stein campaign said it will move to disqualify two Michigan Supreme Court justices from hearing cases related to the recount -- Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. and Justice Joan Laren -- citing that they have been mentioned by President-elect Donald Trump as potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[FBaggins]

27. That would still leave a 3-2 Republican majority

Also - whether we like it or not, the earlier ruling is probably correct legally. Recount statutes are not written so that anyone can satisfy themselves on the handling of an election. They exist so that candidates who lost narrowly can make sure that the count is correct.

[wordpix]

47. HRC: NOW show leadership, or a military-oligarch total takeover of US coming

NOW! It's your time, do it!

[Crepuscular]

59. Laughable

The fact that Trump included those justices on a list of potential supreme court appointees, prior to being elected, is hardly grounds for their disqualification. Heck, it's entirely possible that those and other Justices on the MSC voted for Trump, which still does not create grounds for disqualification. Otherwise any of the SC Justices that voted for either Bush or Gore would have had to disqualify themselves and that certainly did not happen. The Stein campaign is delusional in that regard.

[riversedge]

13. Crap. I did not want to hear that.

[bdamomma]

15. me either nothing is a waste of time

especially our freedom when it is being taken away from us. Let us rise to the occasion.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. Stein doesn't seem to realize

That the suit her attorneys filed in federal court had nothing to do with whether or not there should be a recount, but rather when that recount should start.

[FBaggins]

25. I'm not sure that she's paid more in Michigan than what they've already done

There may not be anything to refund.

[Land Shark]

9. Take to the streets is great; relying.on.ANY audit or recount is not

We simply must get it right on election night. Meaning, hand counted ballots in precinct, precinct posted totals, and summoning just like jury service to make sure there are plenty of workers and observers.

I salute all recount folks and will continue on myself, but it needs to be said in every teachable moment that post election relief of any kiND is extraordinarily expensive, risky, and not something to bet democracy on. Paper ballots are simply an.illusion if scanned by machines because you can't as a practical matter get to them, and perhaps the only person with standing to pursue it is ill positioned due to fatigue expense and "Sore loser" attacks from actually defending democracy.

Democracy is defenseless against both the.machines as well as the governmental machine that wants to avoid embarrassment of being the "next Florida" or even just having to answer hard questions about the job they did. So, they circle the wagons, nonpartisan....

[Land Shark]

11. And, I just donated to the recount efforts again, anyway.

Pay to peek litigation, instead of the free transparency our government owes us.

[msongs]

16. while millions are waving the white flag, some are trying everything nt

[Land Shark]

19. More power to them. Just realize how brave they are given how rigged the system is

[wordpix]

48. Hillary needs to get out there NOW! And DOJ

[roamer65]

20. I give it to Stein.

She has fought this way more than Hillary.

I am disappointed in Hillary.

[JudyM]

28. Exactly how I feel. And this is one more area where there's a huge division here, why am I not

surprised. Jill Stein gets smeared (money-grabbing imagery, which is another whole issue) while Hillary's lack of meaningful engagement to ensure votes were counted is dismissed as "she knows better" or "she's done enough and deserves a rest."
Well, sorry, but that's not good enough when there's a maniac headed for the White House and there is even a slight chance that the narrow margins might be wrong!

[golfguru]

77. Please read post #76

[riderinthestorm]

33. +1 nt

[wisteria]

21. They want us to give up and accept this crazy con man.

We have to keep fighting. A president like Trump should never happen again. We need to know every vote counted.

[golfguru]

76. If you want 99.99% true vote counts, copy Honduras voting system

Everyone in Honduras is required to vote only in the precinct as indicated on their government issued (free) photo ID card. Every citizen over 18 is required to have an national ID, and everyone with an ID can vote. No one else, and no one is registered as a member of a certain party, merely a citizen.

The voting place is closely watched over by Army and Policía Nacionál to make sure order was kept. After showing ID, passing the guard and entering the building, Voter goes to the main table and they run voter's ID through a computer and given a little slip of paper that indicated voter's name, precinct, mesa (voting area) and voter's number on the voter registration list). Every citizen is automatically registered to vote, and their name, Id photo and precinct number is on a list posted in that precinct.

At the right door in building, the man watching the door check's ID against the list, and let them in.
Inside the room, ID checked again and compared it to the info and photo in the registry, then given two ballots, one for president and one for congress, and this time they hold the ID while voter votes. After voting voter deposits ballots in the appropriate boxes, and is given ID back.

No cameras were allowed anywhere but in the street. No alcohol is sold anywhere in Honduras from Saturday through Monday, the day before and the day after election.

They take voter ID, and potential vote fraud, VERY seriously. All ballots are paper, and all have the candidate’s info and photo. There are eight official parties in Honduras, and the one with the most votes wins. The police and the army watch the voting very closely. One woman was caught with an extra ballot, and was immediately arrested. The Honduras news media, which is quite politically unbiased, indicated that both local and official foreign observers found only three cases of vote fraud in the entire country.

This is the difference between a the USA and a Banana Republic!

[treestar]

29. for what reason and will Stein appeal

to the federal court of appeals?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. I'd be surprised if she had grounds to appeal the federal decision

Her original suit in federal court had to do with the timing of the recount, not whether or not the recount should occur.

[treestar]

49. we can only know that if we know what the legal reasoning

was for the halt.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

50. The federal judge provided the legal reasoning for the halt n/t

[judesedit]

30. They won't count. They know the truth...that he lost, that they are thieves and liars same as with W

Hillary won. I hope she does create a shadow government. She will be the person I will listen to. Not that bigoted, lying, hypocritical impostor and his cabinet of misfits who were put there by the Thugs. It took years of gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement and intimidation, voter suppression, 900 less polling places in the south alone, dismantling of the voting rights act, less days to vote, purging of thousands of particularly minority voters from the roles, throwing away ballots, Russian hacking, Wikileaks, fake news stories, brainwashing by a bought-and-paid-for media, the use of easily manipulated Diebold and Sequoia electronic voting machines, etc,etc,etc. and Drumpf still didn't win the popular vote. He lost by millions. I'm sure most if not all will have buyers remorse. Unfortunately, even those of us who didn't drink the Kool-Aid will have to live through it, too. God help us all.

[judesedit]

31. They've gerrymandered so well that even though there are many more Dem votes, they stay in position

It should be against the law. But the crooks make the laws. We must fight. And if we vote in huge numbers we'll win. Obstruct them every chance you get. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

[elleng]

35. Cheated out of your vote in Michigan? Greg Palast. Wants to hear from people.

https://www.facebook.com/GregPalastInvestigates/videos/vb.87777747127/10154789502447128/?type=2&theater¬if_t=live_video¬if_id=1481169156357674

[dmosh42]

37. Doesn't look good for 2018, with crooks and Nazis in charge. And I volunteered four years in.......

military for this country?

[AngryAmish]

38. So now is the time to give her more or my money?

Who will match me?

[FBaggins]

39. I'll take care of all the logistics

Well just have everyone send the donations to me (cash only please) and I'll match them.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. Are you trustworthy? A Nigerian Prince, perhaps? I can give $10,000. ...

... just send some good-faith deposit, $1,000 say, to JustABozoOnThisBus, c/o 1st national bank of Bulgaria in Sofia. Your money will multiply quickly, my good friend.

[Scruffy1]

63. This whole recount business is a waste of time.

If we had some sort of auditing system in place it would be easy, but the way it is set up it never accomplishes anything useful. The discrepancies involved are always small. If any real fraud occurs it is done by computer and nearly impossible to track. The real problem we should be working on is making sure that the equipment is in good shape and there is sufficient access for all voters. A large share of Detroit machines were broken. This is a trend that voters in poor areas have long waits and insufficient facilities while the Republican voters have shorter waits and nice facilities. When you are poor and have to deal with working off shifts, day care, and transportation these are big obstacles. Spoiled ballots balloon in Democratic areas also, but I don't have a cure for that. I can believe the under vote because a lot of people hated both candidates. Though I dislike Stein, I don't believe she'll keep the money. In the end, it was just about raising her own profile.
What we need to do is get over getting our asses kicked and go after the House in 2018. I played on a football team that go beat 63-7 once. We suited up the next week. And that is what we need to do. Quit blaming, come together and get back to work. The media won't help us so we have to do it the old fashioned way. Everyone of us should be focused everyday in bringing in new voters. Co workers, acquaintances, family, strangers, preachers, teachers, and anyone we can find. Educate and activate. There is no reason we can't duplicate in reverse 1994 and 2010. Study how the enemy did it and learn effective tactics. Our motto should be "Whatever it takes."

[Land Shark]

67. Nothing that takes place after election night is workable including audits

[agalisgv]

68. We'll never know. Again. nt

[Kotya]

70. Michigan Supreme Court denies Stein's recount appeal.

3-2 ruling.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/09/trump-justices-recount/95192294/

The recount effort in Michigan is effectively over.

[AgadorSparticus]

91. It is beyond Michigan now. Our entire election has been thrown up in the air.

[golfguru]

94. and Stein is richer by $5,500,000!