Internet Articles (2017)
he Wisconsin Elections Commission received two recount petitions on Friday, Nov. 25, 2016, on the last day a recount could be requested in the Dairy State. One recount request came from the Green Party, from socialist Jill Stein for President Campaign. Stein, who received 31,006 of the 2,975,313 votes cast in Wisconsin (and less than 1% of the votes cast nationwide for presidential candidates in this election). In other words, she was a loser coming out the of the chute. The State of Wisconsin should have declined her request simply because the purpose of a recount is to uncover voting errors or vote fraud which may have impacted that candidate's chances of winning that elected office. In Stein's case, it shouldn't matter that the candidate produced the $2.2 million to cover the human cost of the hand recount—not just for Wisconsin, but for Michigan and Pennsylvania as well. Stein received less than 1% of the national vote and couldn't win if every major party candidate in the race conceded and dropped out of the race. In the Wisconsin vote sampling, Stein's total votes dropped from 31,006 to 30,085 votes.
But, the real problem with the 1%er's vote challenge is that it is not Jill Stein's vote challenge. It's Hillary Clinton's vote challenge disguised as Jill Stein's challenge after Clinton conceded the election, thanks to an obscure leftwing Ohio University professor, J. Alex Halderman.
In five days, Stein raised $6.4 million ($4.2 million more than she needed to pay for recounts in all three States). The amount she theoretically raised in five days exceeded the total amount she raised for both of her presidential runs in 2012 and 2016. With enough money to recount those three States three times, Stein's website is still urging disgruntled leftwingers and social progressives to send more money. What is the excess money going to be used for? In Stein's words: "We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting reform." Like every "mega state leftwinger," one imagines that Stein's idea of systemic voting reform would be attempting to legislatively abolish the Electoral College since it would never be repealed by a constitutional amendment because it would have to be ratified by 3/4th of the States.
Stein, a medical doctor, is married to Richard Rohrer, also a medical doctor. The Rohrers lived in Lexington, Massachusetts which, with Concord, was where the shots heard 'round the world were fired in April 1775, and the Revolutionary War began. Wouldn't it be ironic if America's second Revolutionary War began because of a political fund-raising scheme initiated by someone from Lexington or Concord at the behest of America's 21st century Benedict Arnold, Hillary Clinton?
Think about this: Just because you want a recount, and have the money to pay for one, doesn't mean you're entitled to it. I think, to be in the running for a recount, you need to be "in the running" for the political job you sought in the Election. Stein was not. Hillary Clinton was the covert partner in the "recount" scheme from the beginning—as was, my guess would be, George Soros, who I expect did most, if not all, of the funding for the recounts. I say that only because Soros has as much to lose in this dog fight as Hillary. After all, he owns the current occupant of the White House who is nano-days away from retiring from the best job in America. When Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2017 (or Hillary Clinton if she manages to pull of the biggest political heist in history by stealing the Oval Office after losing it) Obama's paper mache legacy will be history.
I don't think Clinton is going to be able to pull of the coup d'état because of Jill Stein's obligatory affidavit. She affirms heresay as the culprit, using rumor as her logic for seeking a recount. The State of Wisconsin stupidly gave it to her. I think any candidate asking for a recount needs to be the second place candidate, and that candidate needs to offer more than speculation and whispers in the wind, whether hers, Hillary Clinton's or J. Alex Halderman, a professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan. He was a member of the team that dumped California's computer voting system and replaced it with another computer voting system (all States, since the 2002 passage of the Help America Vote Act [HAVA] required all States to use electronic voting machines (the best vote-stealing technology in the world), leaving only the decision of which one, to the States.
What is now known about Halderman's intervention is that it followed a report from the New York Magazine that Halderman and other leftwingnut scholars and leftist lawyers had urged the Clinton Campaign to challenge the results of the presidential election in three swing states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania almost from the moment Hillary conceded the election to Trump.
The group of leftwingers, convinced they could pull victory out of defeat, called Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, laying out their argument, based on apparent discrepancies in between the number of votes in the counties that used paperless electronic voting machines and counties with paper ballots. Cyber security experts have been arguing for years that election results should be audited because US voting machines are so easy to hack. (What cyber experts should have been advocating is the return to paper ballots and a #2 pencil—and hand-counting the ballots.)
What we now know for certain is that Halderman was not found and hired by Jill Stein. Halderman who, to the best of my knowledge had never, up close and personal, examined the electronic voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania when the group he was in called Podesta and suggested that since, out of the total voting base in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a 7% higher percentage in Wisconsin voters (using paper ballots fed into an electronic counter), voted for Hillary than those in Pennsylvania. It appeared to Halderman that vote fraud, based entirely on the Democrat polling companies' fabricated exit polling data (perpetuated deliberately by the mainstream media to swing fence-sitting voters in precincts still open in other time zones), to either vote for Clinton or not vote at all. We now know that many of them chose not to vote—who would, had they voted, cast their ballots for Democrats..
Hillary, who knew the stink she created since 2009 would stick to her like skunk odor on a hot summer night—particularly if she repudiated her concession to Trump and then called for a recount in the three States which gave Donald Trump his victory. And, even more, if she then lost the recount. If that happened, she knew she could expect that the first piece of business on January 20, 2017, would be US Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions meeting with the FBI to discuss the completion of the investigations and the prosecutions of Bill and Hillary Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors.
When Halderman spoke to John Podesta, he suggested that Clinton call for a forensic audit of the voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If computerized vote theft had happened, he said, this would be the easiest way to uncover it.
Even though Inquistitor writer Christine Beswick made Halderman out to be a computer guru, Halderman second guessed himself and was forced to recant his expert opinion, suggesting by his back-peddling that the hacking of the voting machines likely didn't happen. Personally, I don't think the Clinton Campaign wanted a forensic examination in those States because they knew Trump didn't hack anyone, and that any hacking that might be found was done by the Democrats. I believe the reason Clinton didn't go back for a last round of campaigning in those three States was because she was convinced she had all the votes she needed in her pocket—or in the GEMS.file in the voting machines.
And, I also think that's why Halderman, in the end, suggested simple recounts. I have no way of knowing with any certainty, but I'd almost guess the Clinton Campaign signaled they didn't want a forensic examination of the voting machines. But even if Clinton wanted that can of worms sealed, Stein didn't. She was still hanging her hat on finding voter fraud.
And, based on how this scenario unfolded, I am thoroughly convinced Hillary's people contacted Jill Stein and got her involved in recounting the three States by offering her a way to build a Senatorial campaign war chest because, when Hillary won the recount and became President, she was likely going to pick Sen. Ed Markey D-MA] as the head of the Dept. of Energy (or perhaps implied that might happen), leaving Markey's Senate seat open for Stein in a special election.
So what we have here, it turns out, are one, two or three recounts suggested by Halderman and his group of wingnut lawyers and environmentalist to Clinton, and from Clinton herself or through Podesta to Jill Stein. If you look long enough and hard enough, you will always find Hillary's fingerprints on any despicable deed in "the world according to Bill and Hillary."
Stein's arguments are made up from fabricated polling data by the leftwing media talking heads and the Clinton Campaign. Stein claims she, as the petitioner, heard in Aug. 2016—and believed—that foreign operatives breached voter registration databases in at least two States and stole thousands of voter files • That foreign entity? My guess? The DNC. Stein then affirmed her belief that hackers broke into the DNC's email system and John Podesta's email account and exposed the skullduggery the DNC, in conjunction with Hillary Clinton's conspiring to keep Stein off as many ballots as they could, and change the rules to make sure that even if Clinton's Democratic opponent in the presidential primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders I-VT] , won a State, Hillary would still win as many, if not more delegates from that State than he did (because Hillary was the only Democratic candidate eligible to win super delegates) • Stein treated the events the Left publicized as though they proved vote fraud when what they proved was the corruption in the alliance between Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL] although it had absolutely nothing to do with vote tampering in the general election.
In other words, Stein used liberal smoke and mirrors to suggest voter fraud was committed in the election when, the only fraud that impacted the Democratic turnout was committed by Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz changing the rules of the Democratic National Committee to prevent any electable candidate from competing against Clinton in 2016. And, of course, there was also the ongoing FBI investigation of Hillary's illegal use of a private email server in the State Dept., and the collusion between the Secretary of State and several foreign governments seeking disadvantageous concessions that would ultimately negatively impact the people of the United States as it made billionaires out of the Clintons (with their Clinton Foundation wealth now safely sequestered in the central bank of Qatar, the Switzerland of the Mideast) So, if anyone conspired to interfere with Hillary's successful run for the White House in 2016 it was Hillary Clinton herself. It was her own 30 year trail of high crimes and misdemeanors. Ultimately, the sins of Clinton-past were destined to catch up with Clinton-present. They did. And, the people spoke.
Because the people spoke in a loud and clear voice, perhaps it's time, once again, for the US Supreme Court to step in again and stop this recounts which, filed by Jill Stein who couldn't win this dog fight if both Trump and Clinton conceded the election. Gary Johnson would have still "whupped" Stein. Trump needs to petition the US Supreme Court to end the endless recounts by a woman who won less than 1% of the vote. This exhibition is not democracy in action, it's election theft in action.