Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton for Joining Recount Effort

There has been a strong assumption that Jill Stein's recount efforts are an effort to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Trump, although I have never seen any such claims from Stein herself. It sounds like more "fake news" to me, especially after seeing this:

Jill Stein slams Hillary Clinton for joining recount effort

Which quoted Jill Stein's Twitter feed:

Why would Hillary Clinton—who holds "public" and "private" positions—want to engage in something as transparent as #Recount2016? — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) November 26, 2016

Why would Hillary Clinton—who conceded the election to Donald Trump—want #Recount2016? You cannot be on-again, off-again about democracy. — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) November 26, 2016

I know! I know!!! (Waving my raised hand wildly in air...) Perhaps Hillary has no choice. Time to keep her friends close and her enemies closer.

Election integrity cannot be led by a party w/o integrity, just as a revolution cannot happen in a counterrevolutionary party. #Recount2016 — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) November 26, 2016

Maybe -- just maybe -- Jill Stein really is motivated by a desire for election integrity. Maybe she believes the election really was rigged -- FOR Hillary and against HER as well as Trump and Johnson and all third-party/independent candidates. Maybe that's what she wants to prove.

I'm not sure why she picked the three states she did, but I'm thinking she has a reason, and it's enough for her to think she'll find what she's looking for in those three states.

George Soros is putting Stein up to this...there is another thread, stating the same. Who knows? Something is fishy, and its not vaginosis.

Hillary was the darling of those who really run the shots, suddenly everything turned, even the MSM. Very interesting. Probably has to do with pizza? Dunno?

a reply to: Boadicea

The only reason so far I've seen given for Ms. Stein wanting a recount is because her party, the Green Party, was given a lot of money to do so.

She publicly endorsed Trump not long before election day so all of this isn't making a whole lot of sense to me but perhaps I'm not seeing the obvious. I have to admit I'm perplexed.

If all of this effort has to do with election integrity and only election integrity, I hope Ms. Stein would make that very clear.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah ok and I'm just to believe because she spoke out against Clinton?

Then how did she pick the states she did?

Of course she doesn't want people to think she's working with Clinton.

This political game is chess, remember, not checkers? George Soros backing Jill Stein is obviously a move for the future. George has positioned himself for the future with Jill. Hillary just got reality-slapped again, and again.

a reply to: Justso

This ended any hope Jill had of a political future....

"Hillary is a big fat meanie!!! See? That proves I'm not doing it for her" said Jill, and then all of the people realized Jill was honest and went about their business knowing that justice was being served.

a reply to: Boadicea

Maybe -- just maybe -- Jill Stein really is motivated by a desire for election integrity. Maybe she believes the election really was rigged -- FOR Hillary and against HER as well as Trump and Johnson and all third-party/independent candidates. Maybe that's what she wants to prove.

Hmm. That's a very interesting point to consider. Thanks for sharing that.

Or this little outburst of Jill Stien's is on marching orders from Hillary.

Hillary says “Jill they are on to us, trying to steal this thing back from Trump. You know it can’t seem like this recount is coming from me because it will make me look too much of a hypocrite after chastising Trump from challenging the election if I won. No, you have to go out there and pretend that you and me are not working together on this thing. Now get out there and get my throne back for me!”

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
George Soros is putting Stein up to this...there is another thread, stating the same.

I just read that thread... and yeah, that's what it says, but it's speculation at best, based upon several large donations in hourly intervals. Nothing to prove anything about Soros. It may be true, but we have no way of knowing that.

Even if it is, how deliciously sweet if Soros funds the nail in Hillary's coffin! Providing, of course, that the recounts do take place and do incriminate Hillary -- and that's still a big "if".

Hillary was the darling of those who really run the shots, suddenly everything turned, even the MSM. Very interesting. Probably has to do with pizza? Dunno?

Yeah, something has definitely changed. I'm not sure what -- cough cough! cough cough! -- but it feels like the winds have shifted somehow.

George Soros shill,of course she is doing it for Hillary the money trail stops at him,he didn't spend all that money for nothing,he's a poor loser

George Soros shill,of course she is doing it for Hillary the money trail stops at him,he didn't spend all that money for nothing,he's a poor loser

a reply to: Boadicea

What if "someone" promised Ms. Stein they would back her with multi-millions in the next presidential run in the bid to place a woman in the White House?

It's just a question which may have no merit at all.

may be she is angry only 2 people voted for her

Here, I whipped up this picture so that people can understand.

a reply to: Boadicea

She "slams" Clinton, yet for some reason chose the 3 swing states that were narrowly won by Trump, and could hand Clinton the election if for some reason the 3 were changed blue.

Yea right, I also hear Siberian winters are lovely.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

She publicly endorsed Trump not long before election day...

I hadn't seen that, so thank you. I knew she refused to endorse Hillary though.

...so all of this isn't making a whole lot of sense to me but perhaps I'm not seeing the obvious. I have to admit I'm perplexed.

You got that right! Nothing is making any sense right now, and I don't think anything is what it seems -- especially the "obvious." I don't think we have enough information yet to make any sense of it. We've just gotta watch and listen.

If all of this effort has to do with election integrity and only election integrity, I hope Ms. Stein would make that very clear.

I would hope so too. She has already, though she could be more vocal about it. But even if she were, I'm not sure the mainstream media would even report it. They talk a lot about her and her efforts -- but don't seem interested in talking to her. I could not even find any mainstream news sources for this. They all seemed to find it newsworthy to report that Hillary had joined the effort... shouldn't Stein's response be just as newsworthy?

Nothing is right...

a reply to: Boadicea

Because Jill is only doing it for the money and letting hillary near millions of dollars well, do i really need to point out the obvious?

www.dailywire.com...

1. There is no evidence that the election results weren't reliable. As the Daily Wire has explained, there is nothing to suggest that the electronic voting machines were hacked. Donald Trump's advantage over Hillary Clinton in electronic voting was a result of demographics, not a hack, and Michigan's ballots were all paper. The entire premise for Stein's recount is false.

2. When Stein first announced her recount efforts, her goal was to reach $2.5 million. Now it's $7 million. Stein has raised $5 million since Wednesday, causing the goal to rise from $2.5 million to $4.5 million to $7 million, according to National Public Radio. What caused the sudden rise in Stein's fundraising goal?

3. Stein's legal costs suddenly surged. Per Townhall:

Why would her legal fees suddenly rise by that much over a short period of time?

4. Stein can't guarantee that the recounts will actually happen. "We cannot guarantee a recount will happen any of these states," Stein's website states. "We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states."

That's kind of an important detail.

5. Stein's website also states that excess money will go towards "election integrity efforts."

"If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform," the website reads. What exactly that kind of reform will be was not specified by Stein, leaving the possibility open that the money will simply be funneled back to the Green Party.

"This is Democrat party fundraising at its best because ultimately all the Greens are are Democrats with bad personal hygiene who failed economics and history," writes RedState blogger streiff. "Stein’s fundraising appeal using a recount that is never going to happen will go down as one of the greatest bait-and-switch scams in political history."

6. It is highly unlikely that Stein would be able to pull off a recount in Pennsylvania.

And even if Stein were to clear all those hurdles by Monday, the recount still would likely fall through, and Trump would still be president:

7. Both the left and the right on Twitter are calling Stein's recount efforts a scam. Via SooperMexican:

When even Matt Yglesias is accusing Stein of running a scam, then it's probably a scam.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah ok and I'm just to believe because she spoke out against Clinton?

Oh dear...

Seriously? Am I supposed to explain the finer points of critical thinking and evaluating known facts and weighing the totality of the evidence?

Then how did she pick the states she did?

Very good question. One that I would think the mainstream media would ask in an in-depth interview. Except I can't find any. None. I found one with Sputnik News, and one with Paste Magazine, but not one with our own mainstream news orgs. I find that disturbing.

Of course she doesn't want people to think she's working with Clinton.

Who would???

originally posted by: Justso
This political game is chess, remember, not checkers? George Soros backing Jill Stein is obviously a move for the future. George has positioned himself for the future with Jill. Hillary just got reality-slapped again, and again.

Very interesting take on this. Thank you!