Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton for Joining Recount Effort

a reply to: Boadicea

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.

Yes , that would explain one of us. So , I am an equal opportunity offender . That leaves one choice....
And , so far , I am being proven right. Hillary's Steingate is failing. Michigan will not recount , and they missed the Nov 21st deadline in PA.
Stay tuned for further proof of lunacy coming from Steingate...

a reply to: Gothmog

Yes , that would explain one of us. So , I am an equal opportunity offender...

That cannot seem to see any other possibility than that a third party candidate who fought Hillary tooth and nail is now somehow helping her... because it can't possibly be true that the third party candidate feels she had votes stolen as well. Yeah, okay.

And , so far , I am being proven right. Hillary's Steingate is failing. Michigan will not recount , and they missed the Nov 21st deadline in PA.

Huh??? How does that prove that Stein is working for Hillary?

Stay tuned for further proof of lunacy coming from Steingate...

I'm not seeing lunacy from Stein... maybe an exercise in futility... but not lunacy.

originally posted by: tweetie
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.

Yes, there are lots of theories, and lots of people talking about her, but not many folks talking to her. I found a couple interviews with her at Paste magazine and Sputnik. In those interviews, she talks quite a bit about the issues she's found with the voting machines.

Exclusive: Jill Stein Talks to Paste About Recount Efforts
EXCLUSIVE: Jill Stein Tells Sputnik About Vote Recount Campaign

Here's a new one from NPR (I haven't read it yet):

Jill Stein Discusses Recount Efforts Her Campaign Has Undertaken

This NPR interview is the closest I've come to finding any mainstream media that actually took the time and effort to talk to Stein about what she's doing. Instead, just a lot of "fake news" about what other folks believe she's really doing.

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.

That's what I found also, when looking into this. And we've all heard the claims of election rigging prior to this election, as well as claims of votes flipping this election (and last election), and plenty of other claims about voter/election fraud... but now all of a sudden I'm supposed to believe everything is fine and Jill Stein is a crazy loon. Maybe she is, but the voter/election fraud is still real. And I'm pretty sure that if votes were flipping from Trump to Clinton, then votes were also flipping from Stein to Clinton. And right there is her motivation.

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...

Which, I believe, is the whole point of everyone talking about her instead of to her... much easier to spin her efforts and demonize her personally.

Much like that "crazy cowboy under the blue tarp" that was just asking to be killed in a deadman's roadblock, LaVoy Finicum ...

The same way that Hillary followers can not accept that she lost due to the lies that the media played over and over is the same as those followers that think that Stein can never or possibly be a Hillary proxy.

People can become so attach to their Political idols that they can not see any evil, smell evil and hear evil.

In reality they are humans, they have faults, they get bitter and they are also politicians, in this time and age is not such thing as an honest politician.

Money can buy anybody this days.

a reply to: marg6043

The same way that Hillary followers can not accept that she lost due to the lies that the media played over and over is the same as those followers that think that Stein can never or possibly be a Hillary proxy.

Oh dear. Now I'm just embarrassed for you. No, you didn't outright accuse me of being one of those "followers," but of course the inference is clear.

So here's a clue: I don't pretend to know what I cannot know. I have absolutely no idea what is really in Jill Stein's heart and mind. I can only speculate.

But I also know that lots of folks are pretending to know what is really in Jill Stein's heart and mind and that they cannot possibly know that.

If you want to be one of those people who pretends to know the heart and mind of someone, I can't stop you. But we both know it's not true. Period. Cast all the slurs and aspersions you want towards me, it doesn't change the truth.

a reply to: Boadicea

Perhaps you missed this...

Stein sues for hand recount

The 'hand-recount' is a deliberate stall tactic designed to hamstring the electors into not being able to cast votes by the deadline. A lawsuit even further compounds this matter.

How can anyone in their right mind believe this does not favor Clinton? Clinton didn't file this lawsuit, Stein did. Clinton could have filed it, but she didn't.

Stein is working as a proxy for Clinton....and likely funded by Soros!

a reply to: Boadicea

NO, I'm just making a general statement.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Boadicea

Perhaps you missed this...

Stein sues for hand recount

The 'hand-recount' is a deliberate stall tactic designed to hamstring the electors into not being able to cast votes by the deadline.

Again... oh, dear. Deliberate stall tactic? Or a deliberate effort to test the electronic machines?

Perhaps you missed the part about how Stein is specifically questioning the integrity of the electronic voting machines and the electronic counting machines, therefore a hand recount is absolutely necessary to compare and contrast the results of the ballots with the results of the electronic machines.

A lawsuit even further compounds this matter.

And yet, that is what she must do in accordance with the law in order to test the integrity of the machines. Deliberate stall tactic? Or deliberate obfuscation tactic built into the law?

How can anyone in their right mind believe this does not favor Clinton?

Pretty much anyone and everyone who believes that Clinton has her hands dirty with voter and election fraud, and that given a fair chance, that will come out for the whole world to know.

At this point, how can anyone NOT believe that we have serious voter and election fraud happening? And how can anyone NOT want to get to the bottom of it???

Clinton didn't file this lawsuit, Stein did. Clinton could have filed it, but she didn't.

Exactly. Clinton isn't the one who wants the truth known.

Stein is working as a proxy for Clinton....

If that were true and that was the plan, then why did Clinton suddenly reverse course and join the recount effort? What changed that made them change the plan? If Stein were simply Clinton's proxy, all was going as planned... so what changed?

The fact that Clinton has joined the recount tells me that she doesn't want this recount to take place and she had to get her people in there to protect her butt. Maybe to thwart efforts... maybe to suddenly come up with a couple boxes of ballots that were found in someone's trunk... maybe to outspend Stein and take it all over...

...and likely funded by Soros!

Given that Soros is connected to those electronic machines (Smartmantic), I don't think he wants the truth known either, so I don't see it as all that likely.

Of course, if everything you're saying is true -- if Clinton and Soros want this recount -- then it pretty much vindicates them of any and all wrongdoing regarding election and voter fraud. I don't believe that for a minute.

a reply to: Boadicea

Fair enough; I won't disagree with some of your logic. I guess we'll see.

For my part though, I don't think you'll find me having stated I believe there is widespread vote-count fraud, or hacking of voting machines. I say this because I don't believe there is, frankly. If there was vote fraud (and in my mind there probably was some), it was likely in the area of ineligible voters voting...and that will not be proven by this, or any other, recount effort. Honestly though, I don't think it had any significant bearing on the aggregate outcome. Maybe in CA it might have, but CA was already going to be a blue state before the elections and everyone knew this, so it's pretty much irrelevant.

What I DO believe though is the democrats are trying find some "irregularities" which they can use hang their hat on and to use to call the "hack" card with. They will then point to Trump and the Russians as having been behind it all. This casts a far wider net of doubt. They know they won't win the recounts, and they've even said as much. What they're hoping for is to find some juicy little tid-bit they can use to question the entire election process...which is a much bigger deal.

a reply to: Boadicea

In the Paste article you linked, as noted from other sources, too:

--even she didn’t expect to raise money as quickly as she did. By Thursday night, the effort had smashed its original goal of $2.5 million and was well on the way to the $5 million to $7 million that will be needed.

The fact that money began pouring in so rapidly and the thought (fact?) that so many Clinton supporters were behind the donations because they were/are hoping to alter the election results (death threats to electors, etc.), made a lot of people quite suspicious, which is very understandable in these times.

This whole effort by the Green Party has become caught up in the swirl of turmoil and rebellion happening across the country as a number of people refuse to accept the results of the election and are trying by any means to change course. I hope Ms. Stein spends more time clarifying her motivations. However, the publicity is to the Green Party's advantage and is also being capitalized on by those who wish to foment turmoil and further chip away at our country's foundation.

You've made a sound case, Boadicea, for not being so quick to jump on the bandwagon of Ms. Stein being corrupted and her motivations being less than pure.

Added info about voter fraud: Bev Harris, Black Box Voting, is someone I listened to many times on Coast to Coast, as well as other sources, and I find her to be credible. She's not a politician and isn't affiliated with any party.




Edited to Add: I agree with the idea that high level Democrats do not want recounts because of what may be shown about the DNC's hand in voter fraud. President Obama is against it so why else would he have said such a thing?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Boadicea

Fair enough; I won't disagree with some of your logic. I guess we'll see.

Thank you -- and for what it's worth, I have no set opinion yet and I am watching to see just how this plays out. For now, I will take Stein at her word, but depending on how she plays her cards, my thoughts/suspicions could change in a heartbeat.

For my part though, I don't think you'll find me having stated I believe there is widespread vote-count fraud, or hacking of voting machines. I say this because I don't believe there is, frankly.

Fair enough. I do -- but that's me and my confirmation bias!

If there was vote fraud (and in my mind there probably was some), it was likely in the area of ineligible voters voting...and that will not be proven by this, or any other, recount effort.

I suspect ineligible voters are big problems in some areas. One of the things Stein said that impressed me that she really is all about election integrity is that she spoke to voters voting twice in different states, but that there is no way at this time to track those voters. I know that happens with "snowbirds" -- retired folks whose primary residence is in a cold northern state so they come south for the winter. The first I heard of it personally in 2000, snowbirds bragging about voting here and also voting in their home state by mail-in ballot. And they thought they were quite clever about it all as well. From what I have read, Stein is quite knowledgeable about the various ways the vote/election can be compromised.

Honestly though, I don't think it had any significant bearing on the aggregate outcome.

As I understand it, at least in terms of the vote flipping via electronic machines, the algorithms used only work in close elections. So while the vote flipping might be confined to just a few areas, it can have a profound impact -- i.e., giving the candidate just enough to put them over the top. The number of votes isn't significant, just that it has the desired end result. I get the feeling that's what Stein is trying to find evidence of.

What I DO believe though is the democrats are trying find some "irregularities" which they can use hang their hat on and to use to call the "hack" card with. They will then point to Trump and the Russians as having been behind it all. This casts a far wider net of doubt.

I suspect you're right... but I also suspect that is Plan B. They would have preferred no challenges and no recounts, and would have much preferred to slink off into the night with their vote/election rigging still firmly in place to exploit another day. But Stein wouldn't let them do that, so now they have to join the recount effort in order to put their spin on it and control the narrative.

If that's true, then I expect to hear Stein calling them out publicly in no uncertain terms very soon... if others call them out and Stein doesn't (or worse, makes excuses for them), that will be a huge red flag for me.

They know they won't win the recounts, and they've even said as much. What they're hoping for is to find some juicy little tid-bit they can use to question the entire election process...which is a much bigger deal.

That may well be so -- at least from the Clinton folks.... now that Stein has (presumably) forced them to address the issues. But they will have to tread carefully. Now that the can of worms has been opened, by questioning the integrity of this election, they are questioning the integrity of all past and future elections as well.

One more thought: Stein is the only one who has remained consistent throughout -- before, during and after the election -- questioning the integrity of our elections. Trump claimed election rigging before the election, then "lamented" the recount challenge, and is now blaming voter fraud for not winning the popular vote, but doesn't want the election integrity challenged. Huh??? Clinton cried "constitutional crisis" when Trump was calling "election rigging" and initially criticized Stein's recount effort, now all of a sudden she's on board the fraud train too. And where's Johnson??? It's like the earth opened up and swallowed him whole!

It all stinks to high heaven.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

The fact that money began pouring in so rapidly and the thought (fact?) that so many Clinton supporters were behind the donations because they were/are hoping to alter the election results (death threats to electors, etc.), made a lot of people quite suspicious, which is very understandable in these times.

Yes, very understandable. And while we have no way to know how many of the donations came from Clinton voters, it's pretty much a given that there were a lot of them!

But it occurs to me that the reason they would suspect fraud is because everyone was so sure that Hillary would win all three states in question -- WI, MI and PA. "Everyone" said so -- cough cough! Hillary was so sure she barely campaigned in those states. Why was Hillary so sure? What did Hillary know that the rest of us didn't?

This whole effort by the Green Party has become caught up in the swirl of turmoil and rebellion happening across the country as a number of people refuse to accept the results of the election and are trying by any means to change course.

You nailed it right there!!! There are so many damn fingers stirring the pot -- all for their own agendas -- it's just become one big muddled mess.

I hope Ms. Stein spends more time clarifying her motivations.

I hope so too... I also hope our mainstream media gets off their keisters and give her that opportunity. There is no good reason for the media to be talking about her when they should be talking to her.

However, the publicity is to the Green Party's advantage and is also being capitalized on by those who wish to foment turmoil and further chip away at our country's foundation.

Never let a crisis go to waste, right???

You've made a sound case, Boadicea, for not being so quick to jump on the bandwagon of Ms. Stein being corrupted and her motivations being less than pure.

Thank you. I'm not trying to defend or promote Stein or the recounts; I'm just not ready to buy into the mainstream's talking points.

Added info about voter fraud: Bev Harris, Black Box Voting, is someone I listened to many times on Coast to Coast, as well as other sources, and I find her to be credible. She's not a politician and isn't affiliated with any party.

Thank you for posting that! Very appropriate here. I first heard Bev Harris on C2C too. She really opened my eyes to the potential for fraud, if not the actuality of it.

Edited to Add: I agree with the idea that high level Democrats do not want recounts because of what may be shown about the DNC's hand in voter fraud. President Obama is against it so why else would he have said such a thing?

Yeah, Obama sure doesn't want those recounts either... He'll come out against an official non-violent challenge of the results, but won't come out against the violent rioters in the street challenging the results? That just stinks... but that's what Obama does.

a reply to: Boadicea

(I'm sorry but... LOL!) I hope this hasn't been posted and I'm redundant.

Members of the Green Party do not support Ms. Stein's recount initiative.

Zero Hedge

a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea, what do you think?

New ATS thread

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

(I'm sorry but... LOL!) I hope this hasn't been posted and I'm redundant.

Members of the Green Party do not support Ms. Stein's recount initiative.

Zero Hedge

Nope -- not posted yet, so thank you!

Interesting... it seems they don't have a problem with the recount, but they do have a problem being associated with Hillary and the Dems, and the perception that the Greens are working with/supporting the Dems.

I had never seen anything indicating the recount was done on behalf of the Green Party, but that Stein was working independently. Maybe that's the problem for them? They seem to support challenging the election integrity, they just want it all Greens? I'm really not sure what they want -- just what they don't want!

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea, what do you think?

New ATS thread

Wow. I haven't heard about that for a long looooong time! I didn't like it then, and I still don't like it now. Our Republic was never meant to be a majority rule democracy, and the electoral college is part of what makes sure majority rule doesn't become mob rule, trampling the rights of the majority. In my opinion, it would never pass Supreme Court muster even if it did somehow pass.

I haven't seen Jill Stein mention the Interstate Compact at all in any of the interviews I've read. She seems more focused on the voting issues and problems. So I don't think this is Stein's end goal.

But I'm sure someone who does want the Compact will be quite happy to use this occasion to push it through -- or at least try.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

(I'm sorry but... LOL!) I hope this hasn't been posted and I'm redundant.

Members of the Green Party do not support Ms. Stein's recount initiative.

Zero Hedge

That article is very interesting.
It shows that even the Green Party thinks that Stein is allying herself with the Democrats.
And they give solid reasons.

The Green Party is turning their backs on Stein.
If Stein has any political future, it will be as a Democrat.

a reply to: BlueAjah

It shows that even the Green Party thinks that Stein is allying herself with the Democrats.
And they give solid reasons.

Not really. It really only shows that the Greens (who signed the letter) don't like the perception being created:

We are well aware of the undemocratic actions taken during the primaries by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Greens cannot be perceived to be allied with such a party.

The letter points out that all three states chosen were won by Trump with very close margins, but that other states such as Minnesota and New Hampshire were also close where Clinton won, and those states were not chosen for a recount. Hence the perception -- as we've heard screamed all over the place -- that Stein (and, by association, the Green Party) -- is supporting Clinton.

It's a fair point. I would really REALLY like someone to ask her specifically why she chose those states and not the other states -- both parts together. A compound question -- compare and contrast. I don't want to hear what others think or believe. I want to hear Jill Stein's answer. It's possible she had good reasons. That for some reason she thinks any voter/election fraud would be easier to show in those states, but I don't know that. I'm just basing that on previous stories of voter/election fraud in those states. (Such as the votes flipping from Trump to Clinton in PA).

a reply to: Boadicea

It's a fair point. I would really REALLY like someone to ask her specifically why she chose those states and not the other states -- both parts together. A compound question -- compare and contrast. I don't want to hear what others think or believe. I want to hear Jill Stein's answer. It's possible she had good reasons. That for some reason she thinks any voter/election fraud would be easier to show in those states, but I don't know that. I'm just basing that on previous stories of voter/election fraud in those states. (Such as the votes flipping from Trump to Clinton in PA).

I don't understand why this isn't being asked of her. As I pointed out in an earlier post. The FBI feels that Arizona was targeted by hacking. To me, if you want to honestly look at our election and possible corruption then that would have been one of the first states to demand a recount. Her selection of states is my biggest problem with the recount.

a reply to: Martin75

I don't understand why this isn't being asked of her.

I'm with you. Pretty obvious question to ask, right?

I'm pretty darn disappointed -- and suspicious -- that our mainstream media has pretty much refused to talk directly to Jill Stein, but have no problem talking about her with anyone and everyone who wants to criticize and whine and complain. I have not looked today, but as of yesterday, the ONLY interview I could find by a mainstream media source was done by NPR.

As I pointed out in an earlier post. The FBI feels that Arizona was targeted by hacking. To me, if you want to honestly look at our election and possible corruption then that would have been one of the first states to demand a recount. Her selection of states is my biggest problem with the recount.

I live in Arizona, and I've heard quite a bit of anecdotal evidence about that. From illegals voting, to snowbirds voting here and in their home state, to vote flipping, to gross violations of ballot handling protocol, and on and on. So I agree.

We should not have to speculate. Why is no one talking to Jill Stein and asking her these questions???