Exclusive Stein just called Green Party filing for recount

[Luther Blissett]

Oi.

Still seems to me that the people in charge, the folks that the Clinton's work for, have maintained their power. Though I still believe that heads of state are merely public relations figureheads, 2017 will still mark a change.

[OP ED]

Jack, I have always loved you, but your "better battlespace" is a fantasy, unless by "better" you mean "nonexistent". I have watched about nine years of liberals and modest progressivs stuck in the "change you can believe in" trance while BRock killed people and assaulted civil liberties at a rate that made even Cheney maintain an erection.

Zero reaction from liberals. Almost zero from progressives and almost steps backwards for actual leftists who require popular support for momentum.

Another eight years of nothing is the enemy. And you're doing apologetics.

At least when its obviously on fire people notice the exit sign.

[JackRiddler]

Jack, I have always loved you, but your "better battlespace" is a fantasy, unless by "better" you mean "nonexistent". I have watched about nine years of liberals and modest progressivs stuck in the "change you can believe in" trance while BRock killed people and assaulted civil liberties at a rate that made even Cheney maintain an erection.

So have I and my assessment of the past eight years does not differ by much.

Things have changed, not entirely, but they have. Not in the establisment politics, by any degree. Rather: Movements have arisen that I take seriously, outside "liberals and modest progressives," after the Occupy moment: now BLM and NoDAPL and Fight for $15 and the still-inchoate "anti-Trump."

Yes, I think the battlespace for such movements would have been better by some margin if Clinton had won, not because she is lesser evil but because of the surrounding environment as sculpted by a victory for the pretending lesser evil with progressive and non-racist exterior rather than for the guy obviously reveling in playing the new autocrat and fascist with a White Power mandate.

The latter enables the wrong forces. The former is hamstrung by Republicans from the start, if she isn't willing to make concessions lefwards.

The latter is angry and irrational and out to radically fuck, do you deny?

All this shit about "pretending" applies more to Clinton's World War III much more than to Trump's supposed secret duplicity, that he will not do the things he promised. Ironically he's worse because his face-value is closer to the (non-existent) interiority.

Sanders was an indicator of the change I'm talking about, as was the insane but well-meaning idea that Trump was actually a break with the establishment (rather than an opening for its most insane and fascist operators to take charge).

Very few people by comparison would have the same illusions about Clinton that they did about Obama in 2008.

At least when its obviously on fire people notice the exit sign.

Where's that exit? Tell me!

The options all show immediate degrees of suck, and the one we're getting is the greater suck.

Which option more opens the way to a possible popular break with the system, one that isn't a frenzy of false hope invested in fascistic solutions?

Anyway, go Jill, it's good exposure even if more doomed than Sanders 2016 was in the first place. We're here now, anything that weakens and slows down the beast should be tried.

It's all damnably slow but what do you propose as the light of hope?

I want to see a third force built, and even if minuscule anyway, chances for that are worse under Trump/Pence, unless they (both) fall. In part because they're presenting a totally sick and false illusion of change, rather than establishment as usual. Readings matter independently of "realities."

From Jan. 21 we're not fighting a neoliberal fuck-face for the (low) chance of single-payer, we're fighting an anything-goes fuck-face for the (lower) chance of avoiding a total ban on abortion and dismantlement of Medicare.

Otherwise all the early appointments speak as the campaign promises actually promised to anyone listening to the bully-rhetoric and occasional admissions of a desire to TAKE THEIR OIL: The wars ain't going to end, they will be repackaged in new forms and get worse.

Thanks for loving me, it's mutual.

.

[JackRiddler]

Somebody, behind the scenes, made sure Hillary lost the election.

There's yer civil war, going on "above the line" as we call the VIP's on a movie set.

The voters haven't actually selected the president, or even the nominees, in a very long time.

If it flips to Hillary, that would be a major counterattack victory by the neocons.

We should all be praying that every one of those evil neocon bastards gets tossed into GITMO very soon where they hopefully can't hurt anyone else.

Hey, thanks for showing up sober (not a reference to alcohol). There's some thinking here going on.

Maybe somebody did flip it for Trump. Maybe also it wasn't somebody but a bunch of dedicated somebody-soldiers working the vote suppression and the opportunities for cheating made available through the many e-counting systems in place, often differing by county.

I see nothing but neocons in Trump's corner getting the appointments so far on the matters that matter to them (the foreign policy posts). Especially bloodthirsty ones, like Flynn and Pompeo. So if they're to be seen as a single group with a common mind, they are either happy to still be on the inside, and not working for a reversal of the election, or else they are split into factions. And those would probably be based on lines of which "victor" provides jobs to which of them, which horse they bet on.

Q. Is the one currently setting this unlikely but potential election reversal into motion, and being interviewed on RT about it, Jill Stein, working for the neocons?

.

[OP ED]

Personally I think Stein works for Green, I.e. she wants them taken seriously as an altLeft. Addressing the red shift, which is possibly hurting her party as well helps to demonstrate that they're more dedicated to Democratic principles than the DNC is. Probably she also wants a shot at the main stage, which proof of red shift among her own voters could potentially enable.

I personally don't see a huge difference between the Republicans and Democrats anymore. The bushes didn't endorse Trump.

And I don't see Occupy or BLM as being manifestations of liberals so much as reaction to their appallingly obvious comfortableness. Also both doomed to fail, mostly due to lack of vision, that is, of bigger picture. If anything, I feel that associations with neoliberal Establishment rhetoric has damaged both causes in various ways.

The exit?

I'm a radical to the bone. The greatest suck is the only exit. We just have to wait on the rest of you to realize that the building is on fire. And I don't necessarily mean you personally, I mean people in general that think an adequate battlespace can exist under neoliberal occupation. The imminent epic fail from Trump will help bring Libertarian types around in the same sense that BLM couldn't have happened without the indifference of Obama.

I want them all to break down. My feeling is that we, literally, don't have time for "progression" anymore and any hope of survival for our species will require intensive and revolutionary breaks with the ENTIRETY of the current system. Anything that speeds up this process despite the suck, will be better in the long term because we will still exist to debate it afterwards. HRC promised nothing but more disguised resource wars for resources that will be irrelevant in fifty years.

(There's also the whole side issue of the CF being a CIA human slavery front, but HRC voters can't accept this yet, that's OK your kids will learn it in college)

(For this reason I don't predict a reversal even if a potential recount suggested it, because her handlers have already decided who is President and they have the power of blackmail and assassination on their side)

I guess when it boils down to it, I'm not optimistic about progressive odds under either administration but I feel that whatever hurts us worse has more potential to coerce real progressives from their slumber. Pinch me.

[8bitagent]

Jack, I have always loved you, but your "better battlespace" is a fantasy, unless by "better" you mean "nonexistent". I have watched about nine years of liberals and modest progressivs stuck in the "change you can believe in" trance while BRock killed people and assaulted civil liberties at a rate that made even Cheney maintain an erection.

Zero reaction from liberals. Almost zero from progressives and almost steps backwards for actual leftists who require popular support for momentum.

Another eight years of nothing is the enemy. And you're doing apologetics.

At least when its obviously on fire people notice the exit sign.

The left would have been more asleep than Ben Carson at a book signing had Hillary won. Remember when liberals protested "liberal" Lyndon Johnson? People are still acting pissed off at people who didn't vote or voted third party,
but it now seems that while Hillary has over 2 million in the popular vote...Obama's coalition didn't come out in the numbers she needed. Even more weird, Trump won more minority votes than Mccain and Romney. Not sure how the white pious yuppies in the Clinton cult can explain that one on MSNBC or Huffpo

[seemslikeadream]

Green Party Recount Update: Lawyers, Activists, Organizers Get Going in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
Jill Stein's campaign has raised $5 million as of midday Friday.
By Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet November 25, 2016


Editor's note: This report has been updated.

The Green Party filed for a 2016 presidential recount in Wisconsin on Friday, after the party's nominee Jill Stein raised more than $5 million from grassroots donations as of midday. The Greens are also planning to file in Pennsylvania and Michigan early next week.

Wisconsin election adminstrator Michael Haas said the Greens met the state's deadline, adding that it will now calculate the precise fee estimated at $1.1 million. Rocky Roque De La Fuente, the Reform and American Delta Party nominee, also filed ror a recount.

“We have assembled an internal team to direct the recount, we have been in close consultation with our county clerk partners, and have arranged for legal representation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice,” Haas said. “We plan to hold a teleconference meeting for county clerks next week and anticipate the recount will begin late in the week after the Stein campaign has paid the recount fee, which we are still calculating.”

John Bonifaz, a voting rights attorney who helped organize the 2016 recount and was lead counsel for the Green and Libertarian Parties’ 2004 presidential recount in Ohio, said the Green's Wisconsin recount petition justified why it was needed.

“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. “That discrepancy has given rise further to the point of verifying the vote. There are different theories as to why that discrepancy exists. One can argue the demographics in the jurisdictions with the touch screen machines point to why there is that discrepancy. But until we actually verify the vote we won’t know the answers to this.”

The recount was far more intricate process than the state audits routinely conducted after every election, Haas said. His statement signaling the involvement of the state's Department of Justice suggested there are likely to be court fights over the process of how ballots are to be recounted, by machine or hand, and the timetable for doing so.

"A recount is different than an audit and is more rigorous," Haas' said. "More than 100 reporting units across the state were randomly selected for a separate audit of their voting equipmnt as required by state law, and that process has already begun. Electronic voting equipment audits determine whether all properly-marked ballots are accurately tabulated by the equipment. In a recount, all ballots (including those that were originally hand counted) are examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated. In addition, the county boards of canvassers will examine other documents, including poll lists, written absentee applications, rejected absentee ballots, and provisional ballots before counting the votes."

The Greens were busy Friday preparing for the recount filing. The legal process is being handed over to a New York City election law firm. Organizers held a press event in Milwaukee and then went to the capital, Madison, to file with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. A WEC staffer reached early Friday said with nearly 3 million ballots, the recount would take several weeks. It must be completed by December 13 under federal law.

Pennsylvania

The process and organizing in Pennsylvania could not be more different. In Pennsylvania, citizens can submit petitions to each county board of elections to recount their precincts up to five days after the official canvas, or countywide count, is completed. There is a big grassroots effort underway to do that, despite mainstream media reports which incorrectly said the filing window has ended for the 2016 election. That deadline is for parties filing with the state, not for citizens filing with local election boards.

“Based on the law as we read it, all counties must complete their canvass. Voters then have the right to file for five days afterward,” said Aquene Fairchild, who is working with a team of 120 volunteers to collect and coordinate petitions to be delivered to local boards of election. “We will start filing today, but many offices are closed until Monday.”

The Pennsylvania team started calling county election boards on Wednesday, after the Greens announced their fundraising drive. So far, they have only identified four counties that completed their canvass more than five days ago, forgoing the possibility of a recount. One is Luzerne, in northeastern Pennsylvania, where 125,000 votes were cast and Trump had 58 percent of the vote compared to Clinton’s 39 percent. It was seen as a bellwether for the state.

“We are filing with county boards of election for each precinct; it’s not a court process,” Fairchild said, adding that the Greens are seeking more volunteers (parcvolunteer@gmail.com). On the ground, efforts are being organized though VotePA.us, an election integrity group that has long advocated for greater transparency in elections.

Organizers are digging into the intricacies of the process in each state. In Pennsylvania, three-fourths of the counties use entirely paperless electronic voting, meaning there is no paper trail to verify—although they could review the machine’s test reports from Election Day, as well as potentially examine each county's central tabulators. In Wisconsin, in contrast, counties using electronic machines produce a cash register-like paper tape that records each vote, which can be compared to reported totals. These are examples of the details now under discussion.

“Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the United States,” Haas said. “The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks. State law clearly gives each county’s board of canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted. Recounting votes is an open, transparent process in which each of the candidates may have representatives present to raise objections, and where the public may be present to observe.”

That level of complexity, coupled with filing fees in the three state exceeding $2.5 million, is why the Greens said they needed to raise approximately $6 million to file, litigate and observe the recount.

Backlash Already?

The mainstream media have not taken the recount as a serious effort to verify who won the three states that gave Trump an Electoral College victory. On one prominent election law blog, the moderator said the Greens had “opportunistically” raised their fundraising goals, and were not required to use the recount funds for that purpose.

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-rec ... nnsylvania

$5,830,991.26 RAISED
GOAL: $7,000,000.00

[Nordic]

Why don't they pay people since they've raised far more money than they originally wanted (and keep raising the amount "needed"?) Instead they want volunteers.

[seemslikeadream]

they do not have enough money yet.....

they don't need to pay people ...they are volunteering...they do not want to be paid ..including me


they have been raising money by the state...now they are on to getting the money needed for Michigan


the money is for the legal expenses

[Agent Orange Cooper]

This will be the moment the guillotine falls on Hillary, when all these calls for a recount reveal extensive vote fraud... in favor of Hillary, who still lost. They're going to make her walk the plank.

[seemslikeadream]

$5,850,322.00 RAISED
GOAL: $7,000,000.00

Because of you, recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are funded! Next up is Michigan.
Congratulations on meeting the recount costs for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania! Raising money to pay for the first two recounts so quickly is a miraculous feat and a tribute to the power of grassroots organizing.

Now that we have completed funding Wisconsin's recount (where we will file on Friday) and funding Pennsylvania's recount (due Monday), we will focus on raising the needed funds for Michigan's recount (due Wednesday). The breakdown of these costs is described below!

On November 23, the Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. With your help, we are raising money to demand recounts in these three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals.

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.

Find answers to frequently asked questions.
Details You Need to Know

In 2004, the Cobb/LaMarche campaign demanded a recount in Ohio. Because of their efforts, an election administrator went to jail. We also exposed the profound problems with DRE machines, which helped launch an election integrity movement. That provoked California to engage in a "top to bottom" review of their voting system, which culminated in the abolition of DRE machines.
The Green Party Platform calls for "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."

Election integrity experts have independently identified Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states where "statistical anomalies" raised concerns. Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton.

These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.

All money raised goes toward recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 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.

We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.

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

Here are the filing fees and deadlines for each state:

Wisconsin: $1.1 million by Nov 25
Pennsylvania: $0.5 million by Nov 28
Michigan: $0.6 million by Nov 30
Those are filing fees alone. The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law. Attorney's fees are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $6-7 million.

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

[Searcher08]

This will be the moment the guillotine falls on Hillary, when all these calls for a recount reveal extensive vote fraud... in favor of Hillary, who still lost. They're going to make her walk the plank.

AOC, I look on Bev Harris of Black Box Voting as the 'gold standard' researcher into this area and would not be surprised if your scenario is what happens.

[General Patton]

Though there's little chance of this panning out for the sake of winning bets pls do proceed

[JackRiddler]

This will be the moment the guillotine falls on Hillary, when all these calls for a recount reveal extensive vote fraud... in favor of Hillary, who still lost. They're going to make her walk the plank.

Sounds like you're in full support then. Did you send some money to Jill?

[Morty]

A Brief History of the Election OMG PUTIN IS TAKING CONTROL OF THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!
Peter Van Buren Posted on November 27, 2016

Media ignore Clinton’s weaknesses and Trump’s strengths for 18 months to epically blow election predictions.

No calls for recounts.

Clinton concedes.

No calls for recounts.

Despite over 200 years of the electoral college system, and this being the fifth presidential election where the winner did not receive the majority of the popular vote, Clinton supporters begin bleating about her winning the popular vote so, whatever, she should become president. Many seem surprised to learn of this “electoral” system;

No calls for recounts.

Clinton supporters hold street protests.

No calls for recounts.

Effort made to talk electors out of voting for Trump fails to gain traction.

No calls for recounts.

Two weeks after the election in the midst of the Trump transition OMG the Russians hacked the election Putin is controlling America with RT.com thought waves and fake news so we gotta recount it but only so faith in American democracy is restored.

Jill Stein, who received zero electoral votes and has absolutely nothing to gain from a recount somehow raises more money in a few days than in her entire previous campaign.

We gotta have a recount!

Clinton campaign joins in demand for a recount.

(Standby for cries that the recount, which will show Clinton still losing, is itself crooked as it was done by the same local election officials under the same mind control of the Soviet Bear)

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent. Reprinted from the his blog with permission.