Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton for Joining Recount Effort

So now , with the suspicion Jill Stein is just another Clinton puppet like we found Sanders was , dont you think that is exactly what Steingate would say ? With Hillary pulling the strings .

a reply to: Boadicea

It doesn't take genius to figure out why the women is going for only the three states that Hurt Clinton the most.

Sorry but she is a proxy and a corrupted one at that, Hillary money has found her way into Stein coffers.

a reply to: Boadicea

Southern California eliminated certain voting machine because they have a big population of illegals that find their way into voting and they need to be protected, California have one of the most lax enforcement of laws in the country and they protect illegals..

They are a joke.

Stein has changed her plan for PA.
She is trying to use another legal method, but the way that she is doing it seems corrupt.

In PA, if 3 voters in a county file an affidavit asking for a recount, showing valid cause to believe there is fraud, then the county must recount.

On Stein's Facebook page, she is asking for volunteers from each of the 67 PA counties.
She says that HER LEGAL TEAM will tell them what to say on the affidavit.
That seems very corrupt.
If a voter feels a valid cause to file for recount, then sure, they should have a right.
But for Stein to solicit affidavits, and then tell them what to say on them, seems very wrong.

That is an abuse of the system. It's not supposed to work this way.
One organization should not be permitted to mass produce affidavits like this.
This method exists so that if 3 or more individuals in a county have valid complaints, there can be an investigation or recount.
But there were no complaints until Stein put out a call for volunteers.

She knows that she does not have any valid claims to fraud that would work for a candidate to file a court appeal for recount, so she is trying to use the people to work around that.

I suggest that any members in PA who disagree with Stein's methods write to their election board and their state representatives.

a reply to: BlueAjah

The reason she is doing illegal crap is because she and her lawyers could not find the necessary prof of voter fraud, now she is going to ask for volunteers? to file petitions.

The women needs to be arrested.

Like I say she is a proxy and what she wants is run her crap against the 3 states to stop the presidential inauguration, but is not going to happen.

originally posted by: TheBulk
Cenk is all for it, so you know it's legit!

Hahahahaha xD

originally posted by: Gothmog
So now , with the suspicion Jill Stein is just another Clinton puppet like we found Sanders was , dont you think that is exactly what Steingate would say ? With Hillary pulling the strings .

Well, no, not really. Especially since it is just a suspicion, and a left-right paradigm suspicion at that, and I have seen nothing that actually suggests Stein is doing this for Clinton. Nothing.

As one who has even greater suspicions that the Hillary/the DNC did in fact rig the elections, I'm looking at this as a real possibility that Hillary's competitor and fierce critic is challenging our election integrity -- just like so many of us have done for years. It needs to happen. Let the chips fall where they may.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Boadicea

It doesn't take genius to figure out why the women is going for only the three states that Hurt Clinton the most.

Sorry but she is a proxy and a corrupted one at that, Hillary money has found her way into Stein coffers.

Genius? Really? Oh... okay. It doesn't take a genius to know that there have claims of voter fraud and election fraud and --- how did Trump put it? Oh, that's right -- election rigging. I believe those claims are true. Someone is finally doing something about it.

I will wait and see what happens before assuming I know things I don't know.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hillary's competitor and fierce critic

Really ? So Clinton joins her fiercest critic in challenging the vote . And her fiercest critic allows it...
Know how that looks ? Follow the narrative or question everything

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Boadicea

Southern California eliminated certain voting machine because they have a big population of illegals that find their way into voting and they need to be protected, California have one of the most lax enforcement of laws in the country and they protect illegals..

So they quit using certain machines because it was too easy to discover illegals were voting on those machines... the same machines still being used in other states? Seems to me then that Stein's recount would reveal that for all to see. And since conventional wisdom says those illegal votes would go to Hillary, I don't know how that could possibly be considered a plus for Hillary.

Maybe that's something only geniuses can figure out.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I'm not sure what your source is -- either for the Pennsylvania laws, nor for Jill Stein's instructions -- but as far as "no complaints," I know that's not true. I have seen complaints about voting in Pennsylvania... and I know that the complaints I saw were against the Democrats.

People have complaints. Including Republicans (which, I might add, have never been properly addressed by their party). Jill Stein seems to be throwing out a wide net to haul in all those with complaints. She seems to be doing the job no one else will do. Giving those people a voice in the process.

I don't have a problem with that.

this entire charade is about undermining Trumps presidency.

prepare for these ridiculous accusations to dog him for the next 4yrs atleast.

Trump won, people need to act like adults and accept it.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Boadicea

Hillary's competitor and fierce critic

Really ?

Yes, really. Have you read nothing about Jill's criticism of Hillary?

So Clinton joins her fiercest critic in challenging the vote .

Yes, that is exactly what Clinton said, and what has been reported extensively.

And her fiercest critic allows it...

Trying to change the goal posts? I never said "the fiercest critic;" I said "a fierce critic."

Was it Stein's warm and loving welcome that gave her away???

What makes you think Stein has any choice? Stein doesn't have a monopoly on the legal process. Clinton can challenge whatever she likes.

Given the circumstances -- that we know -- it's far more likely that Clinton is jumping on the bandwagon to do what she can to throw a wrench in the works and protect her own interests from what would be discovered.

Know how that looks ? Follow the narrative or question everything.

Know how what looks? Folks so far deep into the left-right paradigm that they cannot think beyond what their media masters tell them to think? Yeah, I know how that looks.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: BlueAjah

I'm not sure what your source is -- either for the Pennsylvania laws, nor for Jill Stein's instructions -- but as far as "no complaints," I know that's not true. I have seen complaints about voting in Pennsylvania... and I know that the complaints I saw were against the Democrats.

People have complaints. Including Republicans (which, I might add, have never been properly addressed by their party). Jill Stein seems to be throwing out a wide net to haul in all those with complaints. She seems to be doing the job no one else will do. Giving those people a voice in the process.

I don't have a problem with that.

I think a lot of people are missing her motivation. She has shown disdain for Hillary from the beginning. Even to the point of she backed Trump over her and lets not forget her offer to give up her party nomination to Sanders so he can continue to run against her. Here is what a friend and I discussed today. Looking at her history I think her true purpose ids to take down the democratic party. Lets face it if they didn't exist and with the way things are looking may not much longer the green party would get a lot of support. Id say enough to become a real national party. Now all these Trump supporters are wondering why she picked these three it wasn't because of Trump votes she doesn't care. The three states have had huge problems with democrats rigging elections through voter fraud. My brother lives there so I guess I'm more familiar with it than most but you wouldn't believe what they have been caught doing.


Here lets look at some past elections.

www.politicspa.com...

www.nytimes.com...

So I think it really pissed her off when Hillary tried to cut in on the recount and thus the outburst from her. she is trying to finish off the democratic party if she can create a huge scandal she could accomplish it. Realize right now there is no leader in the democratic party they are still reeling from the Clinton loss and the DNC being ripped apart in scandal.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think a lot of people are missing her motivation. She has shown disdain for Hillary from the beginning. Even to the point of she backed Trump over her and lets not forget her offer to give up her party nomination to Sanders so he can continue to run against her.

Thank you -- that is exactly what I am seeing (and have been seeing).

Here is what a friend and I discussed today. Looking at her history I think her true purpose ids to take down the democratic party. Lets face it if they didn't exist and with the way things are looking may not much longer the green party would get a lot of support. Id say enough to become a real national party.

Again, that is what I'm seeing. May I ask you your political affiliation? Are you independent/third party? I ask because I keep seeing folks looking at this -- and judging it -- through the left-right paradigm. But in my mind, as an independent, I just keep thinking that this is a logical and reasonable action to take by an independent/third party who questions the integrity of our elections.

Now all these Trump supporters are wondering why she picked these three it wasn't because of Trump votes she doesn't care. The three states have had huge problems with democrats rigging elections through voter fraud. My brother lives there so I guess I'm more familiar with it than most but you wouldn't believe what they have been caught doing.

Here lets look at some past elections.

www.politicspa.com...

www.nytimes.com...

Exactly. All three states have been accused of Democrat voter/election fraud for at least the last few elections. These aren't new claims. That's one reason I really don't understand the current disconnect. Before the election, Trump supporters were all over the election rigging claims, now everyone's playing deaf, dumb and blind.

So I think it really pissed her off when Hillary tried to cut in on the recount and thus the outburst from her. she is trying to finish off the democratic party if she can create a huge scandal she could accomplish it. Realize right now there is no leader in the democratic party they are still reeling from the Clinton loss and the DNC being ripped apart in scandal.

That makes perfect sense to me. Much more sense than that Stein is now secretly supporting Hillary and trying to take down Trump. I would even believe that Stein is being blackmailed or otherwise coerced into this before believing that she is voluntarily helping Clinton. If Clinton wanted a recount but wanted a proxy to actually do the deed, it seems to me she would have asked Sanders to do it.

a reply to: Kromlech

Yup! Hillary was quite happy to accept the results when she thought her win was a done deal... she was quite happy to accept the results and concede (after Obama told her to)... and she was quite happy to accept the results and initially criticize Stein for challenging the results...

So what changed???

I think what changed is that Hillary now knows there is a very real chance that the Democrats' longstanding and ongoing election rigging (for want of a better word) is at risk of being exposed to the world... and she can't risk that happening. So, since she can't stop Stein, better to join in and do what she can to thwart those efforts.

a reply to: Boadicea

Well, okay, BUT...if this is the case why then did she wait so long to file this claim? Why didn't she file in on Nov 9? The only straggler state was MI at that time.

What Stein has created (intentionally, in my mind) is a situation where electors in three states may be hamstrung from casting their ballots...taking Trump below 270. Why? Because if the recounts in these states are not complete before the Dec 19 deadline then the electors in these states cannot cast their ballots. Trump will still likely prevail, but if neither candidate is above 270 the nomination will have to come from Congress. Congress will likely pick Trump as they have a majority, but then the VP pick goes to the Senate. The Senate will likely pick Pence, and then you have grid-lock.

This situation works for nobody BUT Clinton!

If Stein loathes the democrats so much, why did she wait so long? Why did she throw the democrats the biggest bone they could have ever hoped for out of all of this????

ETA...if you truly believe what you are stating then you would have to agree with the notion Stein held these beliefs even BEFORE the elections. Why did she wait? Surely she's smart enough to understand how the process works.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, okay, BUT...if this is the case why then did she wait so long to file this claim? Why didn't she file in on Nov 9? The only straggler state was MI at that time.

I wouldn't call 12 days "so long." I have never filed for a recount, so I have absolutely no idea what all goes into such an action. But I'm pretty sure there's some serious footwork to do first, such as understanding and fulfilling the legal criteria for a recount, collecting and considering the various claims of fraud, etc. If I were going to take such actions, I would make damn sure that I had all my ducks in a row and all my "t's" crossed and "i's" dotted first. I'm sure Stein did the same.

What Stein has created (intentionally, in my mind) is a situation where electors in three states may be hamstrung from casting their ballots...taking Trump below 270. Why? Because if the recounts in these states are not complete before the Dec 19 deadline then the electors in these states cannot cast their ballots.

I have seen such claims, but I don't believe that's how it works. Rather, in order for the electors to be denied their vote, there must be a standing official legal challenge to the count. If there is no official legal challenge to the results -- including if the recounts are not complete, and therefore no official challenge is made -- then the electors proceed according to established procedure.

Trump will still likely prevail...

As Stein has said herself.

... but if neither candidate is above 270 the nomination will have to come from Congress. Congress will likely pick Trump as they have a majority, but then the VP pick goes to the Senate. The Senate will likely pick Pence, and then you have grid-lock.

Again, I don't think that's how it works -- but I'm willing to be corrected if you can give me something official to that effect.

Even if it did happen that way -- and I suspect it would be decided by the Supreme Court before Congress -- the Republicans have majorities in both houses. I don't see how it would result in anything but Trump as prez and Pence as VP.

This situation works for nobody BUT Clinton!

Unless Clinton was part and parcel of the voter/election fraud discovered...

If Stein loathes the democrats so much, why did she wait so long?

Again, "so long" is a relative term, and I don't believe 12 days is "so long" when there is so much involved.

Why did she throw the democrats the biggest bone they could have ever hoped for out of all of this????

This is true ONLY if Hillary/the DNC is not guilty of voter/election rigging. That's a big "if."

ETA...if you truly believe what you are stating then you would have to agree with the notion Stein held these beliefs even BEFORE the elections. Why did she wait? Surely she's smart enough to understand how the process works.

I'm sure she did have suspicions before the election, as she clearly expressed them during the run up to the election. And after. I'm sure she was at least considering this course of action, if not planning for it.

But I'm pretty sure she also needed real factual data to take action, such as actual examples of chicanery (such as votes flipping from Trump to Clinton), and other concrete examples that could only come AFTER the election. She probably also had to consider the various states' legal criteria for requesting a recount, and decide which states provided the best opportunity to challenge the counts and find proof of that chicanery. And even then, the appropriate affidavits and other documents had to be executed, which also takes time. She also, of course, had to be sure she had the people with the expertise to do so. And, of course, she had to raise the funds to pay the filing fees.

I don't believe for a minute that this is a simple or quick process. And 12 days does not seem "so long" to me.

a reply to: Boadicea

After coming across more articles and videos, mainstream and independent, discussing various theories about Mrs. Stein's activities of late it is obvious a lot of people are confused as to what is truly motivating her.

The Green Party has asked for recounts in past elections from what I understand because of not being confident of voting integrity but for some reason this time it has morphed into a very strange and convoluted side show.

The more I happen upon discussion of Ms. Stein, the less I have any respect for her but that's just me.

I don't know...