Oops! Jill Stein Cannot File Direct Request for Recount in Pennsylvania, Must Take It to Court

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Indigo5

This is actually what the right wing has been shouting about for a decade...strange to see them shouting about how voting machines are impenetrable now.

They don't claim that. They claim there is a chance that ballots were not in secure locations, who's watching over ballots when the election has been conceded?
Watching the vote tally is not a big deal. Without verifying who's ballot was who's, ballot stuffing becomes the issue.

They validate each ballot comparing the signature, name and address to the voter rolls during a recount and all ballots are kept secure until final declaration in Dec.

And, isn't that what MI just finished doing?
Recounting and validating???

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Indigo5

This is actually what the right wing has been shouting about for a decade...strange to see them shouting about how voting machines are impenetrable now.

They don't claim that. They claim there is a chance that ballots were not in secure locations, who's watching over ballots when the election has been conceded?
Watching the vote tally is not a big deal. Without verifying who's ballot was who's, ballot stuffing becomes the issue.

They validate each ballot comparing the signature, name and address to the voter rolls during a recount and all ballots are kept secure until final declaration in Dec.

And, isn't that what MI just finished doing?
Recounting and validating???

Shhh. cant have facts getting in the way now can we? ANd I dont know anyone who can hack a VISUAL VERIFICATION in a optical scanner.

This is sorta about MI, but all three states are mentioned.....

Nearly three weeks after Election Day, Michigan officials certified Monday that Donald Trump won the state by 10,704 votes out of nearly 4.8 million to claim all of its 16 electoral votes. There's more wrangling to come, though, on the final vote count for this oh-so-contentious campaign.

Jill Stein's Green Party served notice that it would petition for a Michigan recount even as her party pushed forward with recount efforts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump won by somewhat wider but still small margins.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I also heard that any costs incurred to do the recount over and above what Jill collects will be the responsibility of the counties doing the recount!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is Michigan, but I bet all three states are the same......that is just so damn wrong

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Like Michigan can really afford to be doing superfluous activities. This is getting more wasteful and unproductive by the hour.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know, right!

And I highly doubt WI and PA got the extra bucks.....saw a headline that WI could cost $3.5 million...WTF!

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I am still trying to understand what the actual rationale is for these recounts. Historical precedent says none of these will be overturned, let alone all three.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's not about getting Hillary in office, it's about stirring civil unrest.

Think about it, let's say WI recounts and finds massive election fraud. The leftists burning down cities seem a likely response? The excuse needed for nationwide martial law.

The WI recount was denied to her by hand, it's the decision of the counties whether to hand count or not.

Unless Stein wins her lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court, officials in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties would decide on their own whether to do their recounts of the 2.98 million statewide votes by machine or by hand, with dozens of counties expected to hand count the paper ballots

USA Today

So, unless Stein can win her lawsuit in Stalingrad... err Madison, the hand recount is not really a viable option.

Think about it. Trump becomes president, and every single leftist that was out in the street protesting his win, will have their beliefs confirmed that he is not their president.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Think about it, let's say WI recounts and finds massive election fraud. The leftists burning down cities seem a likely response? The excuse needed for nationwide martial law.

I think talk of martial law is not realistic.

Think about it. Trump becomes president, and every single leftist that was out in the street protesting his win, will have their beliefs confirmed that he is not their president.

Well I guess they need to deal with it then, I already have since I did not vote for him. He is going to be the President and he will have control of Congress so he has at lteast 2 years af being able to tell them to suck it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We already have limited areas under martial law, usually temporary. Regardless, the machinery is already in place.

You are making a rational argument for people who do not make their decisions based in reality. State of emergency was called and curfews in St Louis during the Ferguson riots, based on the lies and sensationalism from social and establishment media.

Boston was under martial law, areas in Arkansas were under martial law, maybe if we use the PC term state of emergency would that seem more realistic?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
We already have limited areas under martial law, usually temporary.

What civilian areas are under military control?

You are making a rational argument for people who do not make their decisions based in reality. State of emergency was called and curfews in St Louis during the Ferguson protests, based on the lies and sensationalism from social and establishment media.

Boston was under martial law, areas in Arkansas were under martial law, maybe if we use the PC term state of emergency would that seem more realistic?

Martial law means the Federal military is in control. Each State's National Guard is controlled by the civilian governor.

Martial law is not happening because of this election, I would wager everything I have on that. Besides, what are all those people protesting going to use as weapons? Their tofu?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

the law temporarily imposed upon an area by STATE or national military forces when civil authority has broken down or during wartime military operations.

www.dictionary.com...

Uprisings, political protests, labor strikes, and riots have, at various times, caused several state governors to declare some measure of martial law.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety

www.merriam-webster.com...

I disagree with your self-appointed definition.

ETA - My Black's Law Dictionary does define it the way you do, but I am not a lawyer, and this is not a court.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
ETA - My Black's Law Dictionary does define it the way you do, but I am not a lawyer, and this is not a court.

I believe that is where I got the definition I used from making it theirs and not my definition.

Either way, martial law is not coming.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It would be a state of emergency, which I would consider soft martial law. I do see the second legal definition maybe bearing some relevance: A body of firm, strictly enforced rules that are imposed because of a perception by the country's rulers that civil government has failed, or might fail, to function.

There is no possibility of overturning the results and giving Hillary the nomination, and next to nil chance for Trump to go below 270 and somehow have the House of Reps elect Hillary to office.

Let's just hope those privately owned voting machines reflect the paper ballots. WI electronic ballots are mostly Dominion Voting Systems, which acquired Diebold a while back, so we'll wait and see.

spam removed by staff

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I am still trying to understand what the actual rationale is for these recounts. Historical precedent says none of these will be overturned, let alone all three.

Its all about trying to stop Trump in any way shape or form they can....they may think they can hang up the electoral votes and deny him the Presidency by screwing with the deadlines.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I am still trying to understand what the actual rationale is for these recounts. Historical precedent says none of these will be overturned, let alone all three.

Its all about trying to stop Trump in any way shape or form they can....they may think they can hang up the electoral votes and deny him the Presidency by screwing with the deadlines.

The Stein clan would have the burden of proof (except for
that crazy expense, by the COUNTIES) that fraud occurred.
That meant to me, and from what I got off the tube from the
J.D.s that two people have to submit affidavits that votes were
flipped... and that's a tough one to prove in WI with the paper
ballots.
It also means that the sword cuts both ways--- and the flip
direction could do a lot more harm IMHO to the DNC. Even
dead men leave paper trails... bad joke, it might be on THEM.
And the deadline stall didn't work in Florida in 2000, just sayin'.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Jill Stein and Hillary are really throwing mud on their own Green and Democratic Party. What do they hope to accomplish? When the results don't change anything, their snowflakes will be madder than ever. Maybe that is their aim. To create a division and insurrection. If I can't have it, I will break it mentality. Wasn't it Hillary that dogged trump to say he'd accept the results of the election and now she can't do that herself? Oh yes, yes that is what was said. Hillary is a TOTAL LOSER.

This is the full document submitted to the PA Commonwealth Court by Stein's legal team.
www.scribd.com...&from_embed

I did not have time to read the whole thing right now (I will later), but it appears to me that this is NOT A CANDIDATE PETITION by Stein herself.

This is a class action representing 100 voters.
This is not a petition from the candidate.
I'm not sure this is even a legal for a full state recount under the recount laws.
It has to come from the candidate.

I think that Stein is removing herself from the court actions because she knows there is no fraud.
It might affect her reputation to make false statements in court, so she is using the voters.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Its all about trying to stop Trump in any way shape or form they can....they may think they can hang up the electoral votes and deny him the Presidency by screwing with the deadlines.

I do not buy that explanation. There is no logistical way for her to do this.