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

a reply to: reldra

A legal right? Could you please point to me the exact clause in the Constitution of the United States of America that grants the right to go behind the scenes and Ask Judge after judge for favorability of your case until you get one that lines up with your beliefs?

a reply to: reldra

And exactly what standing does Stein have? Can she show harm?

a reply to: reldra

Believe me Stein is filing this because she was promised something by the Democrats. If it's not money it's something else. Nobody Waits two and a half weeks after the election he just decide something like this when most of these results have been a parent for at least another week and a half prior to now. It's shady and it's stinks.

Asded...I'm not fixing all the voice text mistakes.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

And exactly what standing does Stein have? Can she show harm?

That's actually a great question I think? How could Stein have standing to contest an election where she had so few votes?

Any attorney's around?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: reldra

A legal right? Could you please point to me the exact clause in the Constitution of the United States of America that grants the right to go behind the scenes and Ask Judge after judge for favorability of your case until you get one that lines up with your beliefs?

I didn't say constitutional right.

Sigh...idiocracy.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Stein's been to the Goodie Room!



Wonder what she and Podesta cooked up?

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

And exactly what standing does Stein have? Can she show harm?

That's actually a great question I think? How could Stein have standing to contest an election where she had so few votes?

Any attorney's around?

Even with few votes, she was involved. A judge will decide if she has standing.

I am thinking she does have standing. She was a candidate in the national election for President. Being part of the 2 largest parties shouldn;t be a requirement.

a reply to: Byrd

We need to go back to the old voting booths and paper ballots. The possibility of these voting computers being hacked will always be an issue in any close election.

originally posted by: wdkirk
a reply to: Byrd

Lol. Donations for the recount.

Send us your money, please!

My first thought. You dont need money to initiate recounts .Whats the money for ? Well placed funds in the right hands ? (re bribery)

a reply to: reldra

Any time that we are dealing with the administration of rights of the people of the United States of America the only metric that should be used is the Constitution of the United States of America. Idiocracy indeed!

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: wdkirk
a reply to: Byrd

Lol. Donations for the recount.

Send us your money, please!

My first thought. You dont need money to initiate recounts .Whats the money for ? Well pbefore.laced funds in the right hands ? (re bribery)

Was asked and answered before.

a reply to: reldra

She has to show that she suffered real harm to have standing. Can she claim to have lost something because the votes might have been counted improperly? Seriously?

Johnson has a better claim to that than she does.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: reldra

Any time that we are dealing with the administration of rights of the people of the United States of America the only metric that should be used is the Constitution of the United States of America. Idiocracy indeed!

The ability to sue is a legal right. The constitution comes into play in regard to standing and the outcome.


Therefore, filing suit is a given. No constitutional threshold needed. In what happens after , the constitution will come into play. Precedents will come into play.

a reply to: reldra

And looking for a judge partial to your cause is justice? I always thought impartiality was the cornerstone of justice...must be that idiocracy creeping up on me again.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

She has to show that she suffered real harm to have standing. Can she claim to have lost something because the votes might have been counted improperly? Seriously?

Johnson has a better claim to that than she does.

I think she can. And won't be all about her votes.

a reply to: reldra

I cannot just up and sue you though.

Any judge in the world would throw it out as a frivolous. I have no real standing to do so.

This is the same. Stein has no standing, suffered no harm. The case should have no merit. She can't even claim that she would have garnered enough votes to pick up national election funds for her party in future elections.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

And exactly what standing does Stein have? Can she show harm?

That's actually a great question I think? How could Stein have standing to contest an election where she had so few votes?

Any attorney's around?

I could be wrong but the recount requires that the vote discrepancy be within a certain threshold.

She is NOWHERE near the threshold required in any state.

She has no legal basis or claim to request a recount.
End of discussion on that.

a reply to: ketsuko

And as soon as Stein files Trump's lawyers will say as much. And they're the best lawyers.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

I cannot just up and sue you though.

Any judge in the world would throw it out as a frivolous. I have no real standing to do so.

This is the same. Stein has no standing, suffered no harm. The case should have no merit. She can't even claim that she would have garnered enough votes to pick up national election funds for her party in future elections.

You can file suit against me at any time. Once it gets to court, my attorney can argue you lack standing or is frivolous.

See the phrase 'gets to court'. Then the judge makes decisions. It usually is not instant, he/she may rule on one, yet let the case go forward for the another reason.

In the case of Stein, I am thinking a judge may not want to move very quickly on standing and it will go forward.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: ketsuko

And as soon as Stein files Trump's lawyers will say as much. And they're the best lawyers.

Of course, they are the BEST lawyers, they are YUGE. They have the BEST reasons.