MICHIGAN: Trump Forces Postponement Of Recount By Filing Complaint With State Bureau Of Elections

Law Newz reports:

President-elect Donald Trump filed an objection with the Michigan Bureau of Elections on Thursday, regarding the vote recount initiated by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. According to a statement from Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, recount activities will be postponed pending a decision on the objection by the Board of State Canvassers.

The Board is scheduled to consider Trump’s objection on Friday, and will have five days to make a decision. The recount was supposed to begin in two counties on Friday, and in other counties over the weekend.

Trump’s objection states that Stein is not an “aggrieved” party because she came in fourth place in the election, and “is therefore not entitled to a recount.” Trump also argues that a recount would not be finished in time for the Electoral College to place their votes.

Should the Board of State Canvassers side with Trump, the recount will end. If they rule against Trump, the recount will continue on the second business day following their decision.

  • Todd20036

    Crooked Trump indeed!

  • hdtex
    • That’s giving cock suckers a bad name! (And leaving a bad taste in my mouth).

      • Todd20036

        If you have a bad taste in your mouth, you’re doing it right.

    • Todd20036

      In both of their wildest dreams would they have bodies like that.

  • crewman

    Did Putin tell him to do that or did he think of it by himself?

    • Jeffg166

      Think of it himself. Seriously, you ask?

  • Brad Lathem

    Any American citizen is an aggrieved party to a dictator taking power

    • Michael R

      … and this recount represents a lot of American citizens who paid for it .

    • another_steve

      If they’re successful in shutting down or obstructing the recounts, there needs to be massive rioting in the streets.

      Really.

      I’m a nellie piece of shit, but I’d get out there and riot with the rest of them.

    • zhera

      And the rest of the world!

      He’s definitely hiding something, and he knows it will come out during recount. How he can have the right to object to a recount in the first place I just don’t understand.

  • AW

    Crooked Trump (thanks Todd20036) knows that the election was rigged and doesn’t want to change the results! Sad.

  • ryan charisma

    if he truly won – what’s the difference?

    I move (as a citizen) we postpone the inauguration until the count if finished.

    • Todd20036

      I move we move it until Trump is thoroughly investigated, impeached, tried, and convicted.

      And Pence is dragged down with him.

      Twice!

      • Steverino

        Since that ilk is more regressive than conservative, perhaps Inauguration Day could be restored to March 4. So much for that pesky 20th Amendment.

    • another_steve

      Thank you.

      If he believes he won fair and square, why is he doing this?

      • Kate

        It’s like the tax returns – if it doesn’t benefit him, he is opposed to it.

        He won the state in the certified count. They don’t use electronic voting machines, and they took their time with the count, so it’s unlikely to change anything. What it will do is delay things, and he doesn’t want that.

        He’s already playing “let’s make a deal” with companies like Carrier, and his transition team is already moving forward – he wants to hit the ground running day 1. Obama took his time meeting with foreign leaders until after he had the title, but Trump doesn’t feel like waiting.

        The better question might be “why wouldn’t he fight it?” From his standpoint, he’s won, so why waste time with recounts. He’s not particularly worried about what the people who voted against him think anyway, so if there’s no real chance the vote will flip, there’s nothing to gain from a recount, and only things to lose.

        • another_steve

          None of us knows for sure, Kate, but I sense in my bones that external forces tampered with this election. Russia. Julian Assange.

          I sense it.

          I think others do too.

          • bzrd

            FBI

          • Kate

            This whole election has been about tampering – it’s just a question of how. Julian Assange certainly affected the election, but he will leak anything that’s given to him.

            The real question is who gave him the information. Was it someone inside the DNC? Was it Russian hackers? So far, the intelligence agencies have said they don’t know (despite some people trying to blame it on Russia). Even if Russia did hack the DNC, it doesn’t mean that they gave it to Wikileaks – the NSA certainly hacks Russian political organizations all the time.

            More than that, the media tampered with the election. There were a lot of people with an axe to grind against both candidates, and people with a lot of money funded both candidates, and advertised for and against them. It’s not about reality anymore – it’s about telling a story, controlling the narrative.

            Journalists were admitting that they gave up on their integrity in order to “stop the evil dictator Trump” – whatever it took to keep him from getting elected. Fox News and Breitbart did the same thing, against Clinton. What’s funny (in a terrifying way) is how if you listen to Hillary supporters, Trump is Hitler. If you listen to Trump supporters, Hillary is Hitler.

            Both camps were played. Fear sells, and if you hammer home the message enough, people believe it. Look at the PizzaGate/Spirit Cooking/Benghazi messaging, and you see a concerted effort to make Hillary Clinton out to be a pedophile satanist killer. The reality is that she’s a career politician, with the baggage that comes with it.

            They do the same thing with Trump – taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion. When a liberal justice suggest that a “wise latina” might make different decisions because of her heritage, it’s OK, but when Trump suggests that a judge might make a different decision of his heritage and association with an organization explicitly founded to advocate for race-based positions, it’s racism.

            It’s no longer about news, it’s about theatre, and getting everyone afraid.

          • another_steve

            “Both camps were played. Fear sells…”

            Excellent, Kate.

          • zhera

            “Journalists were admitting that they gave up on their integrity in order
            to “stop the evil dictator Trump” – whatever it took to keep him from
            getting elected.”

            Citation, please!

          • olandp

            “She” has no citation, “she” is just a troll.

          • olandp
          • Kate

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

            “Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

            They believe he is dangerous, so they set aside their “normal standards”, in a way that would be “untenable” in normal elections.

          • zhera

            That has nothing to do with giving up integrity. Quite the opposite, actually.

          • Gustav2

            Because there are no rules when you are spewing Trump or Russian propaganda.

          • olandp

            “They do the same thing with Trump – taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion.”

            Can you please explain to me the context in whic “They let you do anything you want when you are a celebrity, grab them by the pussy” is a good thing?

          • Kate

            It’s not a good thing, and I won’t try to claim it is. It wasn’t a good thing when Hillary commented on how they shouldn’t have encouraged Palestine to have elections unless the US had a way to rig it, either.

            That doesn’t mean both of them are Hilter.

          • olandp

            Citation for the Hillary comment please.

          • Kate

            http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

            “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

          • olandp

            I don’t see the word “rig” in there, do you?

          • Kate

            How do you propose you “guarantee the outcome” of an election? There’s a big difference between saying “perhaps we shouldn’t have pushed for an election, given who might win”, or even “we shouldn’t have pushed for an election until there winner would be who we wanted”, and “we shouldn’t encourage an election unless we can make sure it goes our way”.

            The only way to /guarantee/ the outcome of an election is to rig it, a lesson Hillary learned well this past election. Being up in the polls isn’t good enough, because when democracy is involved, and the vote is secret, anything can happen.

          • Gustav2

            Liar.

          • Gustav2

            Sorry, you can’t use Ms Clinton anymore to hide your guy’s incompetence. Answering a post with “Clinton…” is not presidential.

          • scottrose

            Kate — you get the Red Herring Award of this comments section.

          • scottrose

            And some of his alleged victims say that he grabbed them but they did *not* let him do it.

            By contrast, have any people come forward to say “I let Trump grab me by my pussy”?

          • Scott MB

            But if the emails were such a big deal to Heir Drumpf, why did he appoint a guy that was convicted for pretty much the exact same thing Hillary was accused of. Sorry I can’t remember their name.

            His appointees are dangerous people to have in high ranking government positions. I mean Goldman Sachs guy as
            Sec of Treasury. They played a huge part in the housing crisis as well as obvious discrimination against anyone but whites. He kept banks out of nonwhite neighborhoods and gave nonwhite customers fewer mortgages even if they had the same credit as whites. In 2012/2013 California banks gave zero mortgages to nonwhites. Bannon is a Neo Nazi running the Breitbart site. Sessions is a racist and so homophobic it is off the charts and has talked about his support of the KKK. Flynn is anti-Islamic and has repeatedly retweeted incorrect “news” he saw on Facebook as facts.

          • Kate

            “Why appoint a guy that was convicted for pretty much the exact same thing?”

            Hypocrisy. As I said in the other thread, nobody who mishandles classified information has any business anywhere near government. I’m not happy about it.

            Obama’s cabinet picks were given to him by Citibank:

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet

            They were nice enough to sort by sex and minority status for him, but it’s a real issue when presidents get in bed with business. The question is how we find someone qualified enough to hold valid opinions, who isn’t in bed with business or planning on it in the future.

            Attempting to “fix” racial disparity was a lot of the problem in the housing bubble. The banks were ordered to make loans to people of color at the same rate as their representation within the population. Prior to that, the banks had selected by neighbourhood (illegal, and bad business when it ends up a proxy for race), and by credit score (legal). When banks were ordered to fix the problem, they started writing loans to people who they knew could not afford it in order to meet their new targets.

            They preyed on the lack of financial knowledge to encourage people into riskier (but more profitable) negative amortization products, and products that had ballooning payments, and sold the loans off to someone else before the person defaulted. This left a lot of minorities getting evicted, and their life savings destroyed.

          • fuow

            We know damn good and well that it was rigged. We need to fight this tooth and nail.

          • scottrose

            Trump himself *invited* Russia to interfere.

            “Russia, if you’re listening . . . .. ”

            Remember?

          • Kate

            Yes, I do. He invited them to release the emails, if they had them.

            The server was offline, so the only way they could release them was if they already had them. If they did have them, then it would have meant that Hillary Clinton had failed to follow regulations, and as a result of that Russia would have come into possession of classified emails.

            He didn’t say “go hack emails and release them” – that would have been different. He did invite them to interfere, if they had already hacked her. Since the emails were deleted (and the server wiped), it would have been the only way short of asking the NSA to find out if the emails were really about personal stuff and yoga, or if there was something incriminating.

            That’s a lot of the problem – when you go out of your way to destroy potential evidence, there tends to be speculation about why and what you had to hide.

          • Gustav2

            No. but now a pompous ass who has broken all the rules by speaking to a foreign government OWES them.

            Do you want to play or are you going to leave?

          • Kate

            So Trump owes Russia for the emails they never actually released?

          • another_steve

            Yes, I remember.

            And at the time I thought to myself, “Why isn’t every Democratic politician in the United States of America ranting and raving about this? Calling attention to it. Making it front and center in the news cycle 24/7.

            The Clinton campaign was poorly managed. Poorly executed.

        • Gustav2

          You speak out of both of your faces depending how it suits you.

          • Kate

            I call out bullshit when I see it, without regards to parties. That’s called consistency.

      • ericxdc

        that’s exactly the point: he does NOT believe he won fair and square. That’s why he’s doing this.

      • J Ascher

        1) because he can
        2) because he can
        3) because he can
        Regardless of merit.

    • Xuuths

      Can’t do that — Constitution is specific.

    • Richard, another Canuck

      I’d say 4 years is about the right length of time for the delay.

  • Michael R

    Why that’s deplorable !

  • Lazycrockett

    Michigan is specially dirty cause Manafort was all over MI prior to the general election.

    • picalane

      And Betsy DeVos was rewarded.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Saw a report today that said that ballots in heavy Dem precincts in Michigan & Wisconsin were tossed out because some of them weren’t folded right, among other non issues.

    Blame the media to a point, but it was literally rigged & stolen in the end.

    • Xuuths

      Citation, please. I’m genuinely interested.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Was an interview with Greg Palast on the Thom Hartmann show today. Youtube link may not be up yet. Or, there is his podcast.

  • Michael R

    ” Trump also argues that a recount would not be finished in time for the Electoral College to place their votes . ”

    This recount has to be finished by the 13th and the electoral college is the 19th – is this correct ?

    • fuow

      So, if the recall (which is a legal right) can’t be done in time, tough titties. In a witches’ brass bar. Flying in a cold nor’easter.
      That state doesn’t get to send electors.
      Case closed.

  • friendlynerd

    If he won fairly what’s to be afraid of, exactly?

    • Chucktech

      That we’ll discover he didn’t win fairly.

  • Randy Ellicott
    • Lumpy Gaga

      That accompanying photo should be labeled NSFH (Not safe for Humanity).

      It also must be seen. I had no idea.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      I’ve never heard of “youcaring” before, so I’m not vouching for it, just saying that it’s the chosen route for personal aid:

      https://www.youcaring.com/jimalden-700809

      • Randy Ellicott

        It was the service they have been referring to since the start but like you it was new to me as well.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      He looks quite young to be wearing an Elmer Fudd hat.

  • ByronK

    If they cancel the recount, I would expect the fan to become very shit clogged.

  • Giant Monster Gamera

    Over 2.5 million aggrieved Clinton voters think otherwise.

    • picalane

      so why didn’t she demand the recount?

      • Moebym of the Rebel Alliance

        Since she conceded, it’d have been bad form for her to call for recounts personally.

        • Earl

          Now is the time for her to be bad.

          • another_steve

            Amen. The nation’s — the world’s — security is in the balance.

            The Dems need to get tough and dirty.

          • zhera

            Agreed. I really don’t understand that, ‘bad form’. As if it’s more important to keep the peace than to have the real President in the White House?

        • Chucktech

          Nonsense. Conceding the election presupposes that the election was fair. If the election was rigged enough to make Trump the winner, that concession goes right out the window.

          • Moebym of the Rebel Alliance

            Well, her campaign lawyers did say they found no reason to ask for recounts…

          • Chucktech

            Did her campaign lawyers say that to her at 3:00 AM on November 9th when she conceded?

          • Moebym of the Rebel Alliance

            I have no idea. I just read about it on an article that came out around the time Jill Stein started the campaign to fund the recounts.

      • Xuuths

        Her people did not think there was sufficient evidence to suggest foul play, so it wouldn’t change anything, but would make her look like a sore loser.

        • The_Wretched

          Absent looking, that’s hard to know. Worse, dems have a reputation of being weak. Pushing rigorously for election validation is a good thing.

          • Mike__in_Houston

            Please, Hillary, use McCrory as your example here…

        • picalane

          And yet, his people think there’s sufficient evidence to go to great lengths to avoid a recount…go figure! If there’s one thing we can learn from this election is that the Democratic Party needs to grow some balls.

  • The_Wretched

    A judge in MI already said that the recount doesn’t have to be by hand (even though the machines are in question). This is just more of the same cover up.

    • Xuuths

      No, there is a difference between the machine tabulation of votes cast, and machine counting of the paper backup.

      • The_Wretched

        Isn’t it the same machines?

        • does it even matter? a machine is a machine and will do what it’s told. no one can tell your eyeballs what to see but you.

          • The_Wretched

            eyeballs are less tamperable than machines. The machines aren’t also just straight tally systems. They do data storage, recall and transformation. i work at a tech company doing trouble shooting. We see all sorts of theoretically impossible things.Some times we figure out why. Other times we turn something off and on and that fixes it.

  • BobSF_94117

    Yeah, they need all the time they can get, so stop them for a week.

    Bastard.

  • dcurlee

    Something way wrong with his actions about this….I truly think he was involved with fraud. Not a huge leap

  • Treant

    Awesome, that proves it. The election was stolen and he’s covering it up.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3a7322bad0deacb97fcfae09004eb8c07b3e3e569a75040c9ea4c55654dbc08c.jpg

    • Xuuths

      Certainly not until after December 19th’s Electoral College vote, and then January 20, 2017. Then he is, if you’re an American resident. (Presuming nothing changes.)

      • The_Wretched

        I think you’re missing the meaning.

      • Treant

        Nope. For eight years, I heard that from Obama detractors, so now they get it back in spades. I do not acknowledge him as the pResident. He cheated to get it, as already acknowledged.

        • billbear1961

          Hear, hear!

          Even if he hadn’t cheated, even if the majority had voted for him, fascism is NOT a legitimate option in a truly democratic society.

          Too much of what he has said clearly indicates his penchant for FASCISM.

          That renders him utterly ILLEGITIMATE in the eyes of ANYONE who supports the Constitution and EVERYTHING it stands for.

          Any act by his looming administration which obviously showers contempt on our democratic values and threatens our constitutional rights and freedoms is a casus belli.

    • Kate

      All it proves is that he is the president-elect, and doesn’t feel like any interruptions on the way to inaguration day.

      He could literally be 100% certain he would win in the recount, and that there was zero fraud, and he would still not want a recount, because it gets in the way of him trying to play president before he officially takes office.

      • Treant

        I prefer my interpretation. He’s a whining liar and cheat and trying to keep anybody from finding the evidence.

        • billbear1961

          You are FAR from alone in preferring your interpretation!

        • Kate

          You can interpret it however you want, but that doesn’t increase the likelihood of that explanation being true.

          • Treant

            Immaterial data point. For eight years, Republicans have whined about the the Kenyan birth certificate in order to erode Obama’s Presidency.

            So I can make shit up, too…except in this case, I strongly doubt it’s actually made up.

          • The Return of Traxley

            Kate, you commented earlier on another thread:

            “I voted for Trump, fucktard. I grew up, gay, in a religious family – I know of Christian persecution because I. Have. Lived. It.”

            WHAT?!?!

          • zhera

            She’s a Trumpette, but clever enough to use full sentences and what appears to be logic in her comments. Notice how she’s all about defending Trump’s actions while slipping in hints about illegal voters and criminals and immigrants.

            did the troll departement have an upgrade?

          • shivadog

            That’s fucked up. “I know of Christian persecution” and I voted for more of it.

          • TimCA

            She’s been here shilling for the orange fascist for weeks. She’s supposedly gay too. Go figure. 🙁

          • The Return of Traxley

            Check out her profile. She has fewer than fifty comments going back only two days.

            Something in the milk ain’t clean.

          • TimCA

            I haven’t looked at her profile until you pointed this out just now. You’re right it was created on November 30, 2016. There was someone else posting without a Disqus profile under the name “Kate” for weeks here stretching back to before the election. Perhaps a different Trump apologist? I don’t know. I suspect however there are one and the same person.

          • The Return of Traxley

            I believe she is, too.

            I also believe she needs to be told that her nonsensical ranting and rambling isn’t welcome here. Repeatedly.

            She’s gettin’ the BLOCK treatment from me. I don’t have time for her shit.

          • Dazzer

            She used to call herself ‘Kay’ before Joe banned her/him/it

          • Treant

            Oh! Thanks for the data, I just blocked her useless ass–like I blocked “Kay.”

          • TimCA

            I agree. She/he/it is clearly the same person who was posting here weeks ago under ‘Kay’.

          • The Return of Traxley

            THAT’S her?!?!?

            God, she’s a mess.

      • Chucktech

        “Getting in his way??” Trump is so overwhelmed (or SHOULD BE) with shit on his plate that this should be zero distraction.

      • Mark

        Hate to say it so staunchly – but I don’t really give a fuck how he feels. He didn’t care how he made million upon millions of Mexicans and Muslims and others feel. And, he isn’t president yet – so the asshole cheeto needs to lump it. WE want the re-count.

        • Mark

          Further – he’s simply piling legally lame excuses to thwart the recount. He knows damned good and well that if Michigan shows irregularities – it could well trigger a national recount. THAT’s what he is afraid of and acting against.

        • Kate

          I wasn’t suggesting you should care. I was just pointing out why he’s appealing.

          Trump does what’s good for Trump’s agenda. He’s very consistent that way.

          • Mark

            on that, you are correct. it’s all about trump, trump, trump.

          • NancyP

            Hitler was exceedingly popular for a while….
            Flatter your audience, of course you will be seen as “appealing”.

          • Kate

            One of the many reasons that direct democracy is often a bad thing. Slavery was legal, and for a time, supported by the majority of people. Banning gay marriage was popular, too.

            A constitution helps to keep important rights away from populist leanings, and done right, limits people who are popularly elected.

          • Gustav2

            Poor dear, you really are past your sell date.

      • I see a claim that the election was “stolen” from the Democrats as working against progressive interests.
        I think that we should not lose sight of two de facto reasons why the Democratic candidate lost the election that actually can be proven and dealt with. (note — I am not arguing that a different candidate would have or have not done better, just stating some realities about Hillary’s effort).
        1. She won the popular vote by 2.3 million (as of CNN right now) and counting but lost the electoral college. The solution here is to abolish the electoral college.
        2. Voter suppression, through the passage of laws in states like North Carolina and Arizona hurt Democrats among minority voters — and SCOTUS rejection of the voting rights acts also hurt Democrats.
        The solution here is to reform the system.
        I am not against a recount — but I do not think tens of thousands of votes will be found to have been hacked or missing. It is not reality.

        • Kate

          Abolishing the electoral college would fundamentally change the way the country was founded, and which the constitution proscribes. It’s not supposed to be a direct democracy. Little states are supposed to have a voice, too – it was why they agreed to join in the first place.

          Tampering with the constitution is not something to be taken lightly.

      • Gustav2

        You can’t have zero fraud while you are screaming, “FRAUD!”

    • Kate
  • Michael R
  • Kelly Lape

    This furthers the Fuehrer’s puppet masters (Putin) goal of discrediting the American Democratic Process. It also further de-legitimizes the Fourth Reich.

  • TK

    He’s afraid they’ll find fraud.. on his part!!

  • Bryan

    Welp, this was expected but after the news yesterday that Wisconsin is basically just saying “yeah we’re gonna cheat right in front of you, try and stop us, neiner neiner neiner” and now Michigan is basically doing the same thing my hope for this to be investigated has gone out the window. It’s more than obvious now that shennanigans of a rigged intent occurred. They’re gonna admit to as much before the EC even gets to vote. It’s not gonna make a goddamn bit of difference is it. They’ve cheated, they’ve all but TOLD us they’ve cheated, and now these courts are gonna just let ’em get away with it? HOW. Can we not appeal this on the grounds that the officials are IN on the cover up? What the shit is happening?

    • Giant Monster Gamera

      Razor-thin margins in three states. The Comey letter. WikiLeaks. Russian trolls. The whole thing stinks to high-heaven.

  • DesertSun59

    They’re stealing our nation out from under us and using law to do it.

    You are watching the dissolution of Empire.

    • Earl

      Dissolution of the Republic, establishment of an Empire.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        All the detritus of an Empire imploding, but only the calories of a Republic!!!!

    • Lumpy Gaga

      We can haz orgies?

      • Earl

        If pence has his way, they’ll be rubberless ones.

      • EweTaw

        I hope so. I miss them so much.

    • MBear

      *stole

  • Sean Williams

    Aren’t these people getting paid to do the recount? Why does Trump hate jobs and people working?

    • Chucktech

      Cuz it’ll show he stole the election.

    • McSwagg

      Because Chinese workers will do it cheaper.

  • RJ Bone

    Then the fucking EC waits. Wow, what a massively chickenshit douche-canoe. He’s actually worried enough to do that – gee whiz, I FUCKING WONDER WHY!??!

    Well, if we survive, I hope future society (after we come back from the new dark ages) looks upon this man with as much disdain as his mini-mustachioed fuhrer.

  • Bryan

    Someone please convince me it’s not as bad as it seems? Why the hell aren’t the systems put in place to protect us stopping this?

    • Michael R

      I believed there were ” systems put in place to protect us ”
      until Bush / Cheney started their little for profit war .

      • Bryan

        No, I knew they were an illusion the whole time. It just sickens me to see. Especially that they’re doing it right in front of us with this petulant “I’ma do it, I’ma do it, better stop me, I’ma do it” bullshit.

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    Trumpy, remember, you told us there were THREE MILLION ILLEGAL VOTERS!
    Don’t you want the recount to prove how you totally schlonged Killary, the totally corrupt Wall Street & big-business shill who will totally make Oval Office sexytime with Goldman Sachs?

    • Gustav2

      Not in Michigan, the voters were mostly white!

    • Kate

      Recounts don’t do anything to stop illegal voters, as the ballot is secret and not linked to the person.

      I wonder if he would object to an audit of the voter rolls to see how many people weren’t citizens, were registered multiple times, or were criminals ineligible to vote. There’s no way to remove their votes, but it would let us actually start to look and see if there was fraud.

      Recounts don’t do that.

      • Skokieguy [Larry]

        I didn’t know that. Where I vote, its an electronic machine (with a paper printout that displays to let your verify), but there’s also card I insert and there an identifier number on the paper printout along with the votes I cast. I assumed the identifier is to my voter registration?

        Auditing of voter rolls is done (badly on purpose) that’s how they managed to kick so many likely Democratic voters off the rolls. The crosscheck program is pretty frightening and dangerous.

        http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

        • Jerry

          There’s trouble with the “weren’t citizens, registered multiple times, or were criminals ineligible to vote…” A frequent Trump and right-wing theme that has no basis in reality, and used often to try to deny legitimate voters their franchise. Non-citizens are automatically ineligible to vote. Most states allow felons, once their sentence is completed, to vote. The “in-person” voter fraud myth is indeed used to disenfranchise minorities, students, and any others who would probably vote Democratic.

        • Kate

          The voting machines have very little memory, and they keep counters with the total votes cast for that person. Some will print out a receipt at the time of voting, but they will break the connection in order to preserve an anonymous vote. The number that’s printed might be your ballot number, rather than your registration number. That way, they know that the 3rd vote cast was for Hillary, but not who cast that third vote, if that makes sense?

          Inserting the card is one of the dangerous things that electronic voting does. The Diebold systems are designed to support weighted ballots (due to one small area in California that doesn’t use the electronic votes). They can assign a weight to a registration, then make those ballots count more or less. From what I remember, it was intended for voting for local taxes – people living in the area of a school had more weight on funding for that school, but in order to support that, they had to roll out a system with fractions of a vote, and a way to link a person to the weight (but not the vote).

          So, if someone wanted to, they could make all registered democrats have their vote for president count for 0.7 votes, and all registered republicans count for 1.2. The machine would count them, then round. It won’t show that it’s doing it. There’s no evidence that happened, but once the votes are tallied (and rounded to whole numbers), it’s very hard to prove. For the machines that print out a paper record of the vote (some do), we can recount those by hand. For many machines, there’s no audit trail whatsoever.

      • Gustav2

        “illegal voters” Geez, recounts don’t do that, verification in the process does.

        • Kate

          Yes, that’s what I said. “Recounts don’t do anything to stop illegal voters”.

  • EweTaw

    What is Trump afraid of? I think we came back from Mexico far too early. I need at least another week hanging out where no one speaks much English. Tacos!

  • TexasBoy

    If he is so confident of his win, and since he isn’t paying for it, why is he objecting?

    • its other people’s money, and he hates to see that go anywhere but into his pockets

      • maybe not for funny, but for today’s winner in Truest Internet comment of the Day: you win.

    • canoebum

      As Patsy would, “don’t question me, Eddie!”

    • Kate

      Why not? He’s focused on himself, and a recount can’t help him – only hurt, or waste his time.

      • PickyPecker

        He’s got plenty of time.

  • another_steve

    The Orange One is worried.

    Whatcha worried about, sweetie? 😉

  • TexasBoy

    5…4..3..2…1… The Recount is Rigged!!

  • djcoastermark

    My only thought, What a bone headed move.

  • zeddy303

    Well if that isn’t telling, I don’t know what else to think of this.

  • TK in GBC TX

    Does any of this mean that the name Donald will become as abhorrent to name a child as Adolf is?

  • Rebecca Gardner

    OT but if you’re into anonymity with your electronic devices and transactions today is really a shitty day. First, Rule 41 which gives access to millions and millions and millions of people with one warrant. Such fucking bullshit. And now this. We are heading for very dark times. Very very dark times.

    Bitcoin giant Coinbase ordered to give up user data to the IRS
    http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/coinbase-irs-investigation/

    • TexasBoy

      Because Bitcoins can be transferred to real money. Did anyone really expect the IRS to look the other way indefinitely?

      • The_Wretched

        Not having cash means not having anonymity or privacy.

        • then use cash? am i missing something here? bitcoin isn’t cash, and therefore is it really surprising that the govt, the only agent legally empowered to create cash, wants to regulate them? i don’t mean to sound like an ass, but bitcoin never seemed totally kosher to me. i am willing to be educated and corrected with facts to the contrary.

          • The_Wretched

            Anything that has a recognized value can be used as cash.

            bitcoin allows for nearly anonymous transfer of value. That’s a transactional property of cash. A store might end a day with $10,000 in cash on hand – and have no idea who bought what. They know what they sold but not who bought it. Let’s have the same purchases done with a credit card (digital transaction). Now the store (and the CC company) knows exactly who bought what, at what time of day, and what else you bought at the same time. That data has uses that you may or may not care for.

            bitcoin (and other similar currencies) allows for the a cash-like digital transaction. The vendor only knows they have a pile of bitcoins at the end of the day (and maybe a when/what sold as well as a ‘sold with’ if it’s all in the same e-basket). The ‘who’ get’s lost due to how bitcoin works.

            As a currency, bitcoins are a little complicated to understand so I won’t try to explain it here. They are pretty fascinating. The US gov likely tried to kill bitcoins a couple of times and a couple of hackers manages a duplicate fake but it’s withstood those and has value these days.

            As for sketchy, anonymous on -line payments means all sorts of unsavory types also get anonymity. The most obvious is the avoidance of sales and other taxes on transactions. It also makes other illegal activity like drug sales and money laundering easier.

    • Xuuths
  • Moebym of the Rebel Alliance

    I’d like to think that he’s trying to conceal some sort of fraud, but he’s probably just being his typical self: thin-skinned and litigious as hell.

    I’m just trying not to get my hopes up.

  • no matter what one may think of Jill and the Greens, they are a valid party with standing to ask for a recount. for purely self serving reasons, even. the Greens have consistently failed to meet the number of votes they need for matching campaign funds from the Feds. if there is even the slightest possibility a recount would get them there, they deserve a recount. if i were her lawyer, that’s what i’d be arguing. i assume it would have some validity from a legal standpoint, but IANAL.

    • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

      Hey,

      Been around a bit.

      Have had enough, you know?

      • Everybody: this is one of my oldest blog friends and our strong and good str8 ally. He’s feisty! and takes no crap from anyone b/c he’s a compassionate liberal with a short fuse when it comes to bullshit from pols. he’s not going to agree with a lot of people here, and will agree with even more. Welcome him, as the primaries and election were very hard on him, at the place where we first met as political blog types. He deserves better and I told him to come here for the intelligent and substance based commenting he is used to.

        and i bet you can make him blush a bit with our usual fun sexxytime stories. 😉 love you, man. thanks for stopping by! this place rocks.

        • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

          I am already blushing.

          At my age it is actually fairly difficult to make me blush (But I am certain an effort might be made.)

          My actual feelings on people with different, “Social Proclivities?” None of my damned business except when it comes to denying ANYONE their personal space and rights then I am a strong advocate for those aggrieved.

          But I remain an unabashed liberal who came of age in the sixties and has maintained my edge through working hard for a living in the foundry and in an, “Inner City” School district for thirty years.

          Nice to see you of course.

          • PickyPecker
          • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

            Thank you. (I’ll try not to piss too many off with liberal crap.)

          • Silver Badger

            You may have found a home. Liberal R US! Or at least most of us. There are a few exceptions determined to prove the rule.

          • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

            That’s good to know.

          • djcoastermark

            Oh what the heck, We’ll even give you an honorary toaster.

          • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

            Thanks. (You say that now but when I start quoting Jacobin. . . or Naked Capitalism (Susan is a friend) . . . .

          • PickyPecker

            I’m sure you’ll be fine. Just have to know it gets a bit….bawdy around these parts at times. But we manage to learn from each other AND have fun in the same sandbox!

          • zhera

            Liberal crap is our game.

            Welcome! Straight allies such as you and I are more than welcome here. 😀

          • Dazzer

            Welcome DWD. Sit down – Todd will get you a drink.

  • JellyDonut

    What is the Orange Clown afraid of?

    • billbear1961
      • bzrd

        Mr. Bear, Topaz had a few scenes filmed in the big house on Ayrshire Farm, Upperville, Virginia. I had the good fortune to rent the servant’s quarters for 5 years thus hearing stories of how much fun the owner had with all the crew and Hitchcock. The 800 acre farm was a wonderful place to live, sled down the hills in winter and see the fox hunt up close. The fox always got away, he was no dummy. My kitty and Mr. fox had a run in one day, they both jumped feet in the air and skedaddled in the opposite direction.

        • billbear1961

          🙂

  • another_steve

    This blog and its wonderful commenters are helping me maintain my sanity.

    I just want all of you to know that.

    Thank you.

    • canoebum

      Which is an amazing thing ’cause a whole bunch of us are just plain crazy!

      • bzrd

        speak for yourself, I’m just crazy

        • Silver Badger

          And I’m pretty crazy, in a wavey around the edges kinda way.

          • Beagle

            Maybe I’m crazy, but it keeps me from going insane.

      • djcoastermark

        Dahling, just pick up a bedazzler at your favorite retail outlet and you’ll be fabulously crazy.

    • Silver Badger

      Anytime. BTW, sanity is vastly overrated.

  • Gustav2

    The majority of Americans are the “aggrieved” party, by 2.5 million

    • Kate

      The majority of people who bothered to cast their vote. There were a lot of people who stayed home, either because they didn’t like either candidate, or because their state didn’t matter.

      There are a lot of republicans in California and New York (for example) who never even bothered to vote, because they knew that the popular vote doesn’t matter, and there was zero chance of them changing the electoral college numbers.

      • zhera

        Just trying to understand you here. Are you playing Devil’s advocate or are you being contrary just for the fun of it?

        Either way you’re being kinda clever about i. Kudos to you for that. Your GOP is shining through in your comments though, which makes your arguments rather suspicious.

        • Kate

          I’m trying to be fair. I have a lot of issues with both parties, and try to listen to other points of view. The GOP isn’t all wrong, and certainly isn’t completely right, either. It’s why I’m an independent.

          • zhera

            Fair.

            oooookay.

          • Gustav2

            You have no issues with the Trump Party, cut the crap.

      • Gustav2

        Blah… blah… blah… Trump lost the popular vote by any measure.

  • billbear1961

    This CROOK is definitely AFRAID of something!

    Stein has standing and a RIGHT to a recount!

    • Bryan

      HOW the FUCK is that LEGAL?

      • billbear1961

        Tell me about it!

        It’s bloody OUTRAGEOUS!!

      • Kate

        It’s legal because states are free to set their own rules for recounts, since the constitution leaves matters not delegated to the federal government to the states. States limit who can do recounts because they throw elections into chaos, and cost a lot of money.

        They have boards with the power to look and see if there is any evidence of fraud, or if it would potentially change anything, before they spend the time and money. Some states choose to let people do recounts only if they pay for it themselves – it makes them less inclined to fight them, but it limits it to the rich and well-connected.

        • Chucktech

          Seems to beg the question just WHEN is an election outcome suspect enough to justify throwing an election into chaos, and cost a lot of money? Sure seems like this particular election fits that condition very nicely.

          • Kate

            Generally, when it’s close enough that it’s within the margin of error for recounts. They look back at past elections (within the state, not country-wide), and see that recounts only have effected cases where the votes are within X percent (something like 1 or 2).

            Depending on the state, they will often do things like an automatic recount if it’s within 0.5%, a free recount if it’s within 1%, and a paid recount if it’s within 2%. If the recount changes the result, the recount is paid for by the state, otherwise it’s paid for by the person requesting the recount.

            It’s not about what’s in the news, just about the number of votes, and history.

          • ultragreen

            Wisconsin has already granted a recount. So has Pennsylvania.

          • Kate

            Good. Each state has different rules, and is free to set their own policies.

          • ultragreen

            Ohio also granted a recount request of the libertarian and green parties after the 2004 election, even though they were no where close to winning the state. Some election fraud was discovered during this recount and some people went to prison.

          • Kate

            Hmm. Do you know why they caught the fraud on the recount, but not the original count?

          • ultragreen

            I don’t know. If you type such words as ‘2004’ ‘election’ ‘recount’ ‘Ohio’ ‘fraud’ ‘Cuyahoga’ in the Google search engine some articles may come up that could explain this to you. It happened in Cuyahoga county (Cleveland). Some of the electronic voting machines that were used for that election in Ohio were found to be hackable. The fraud consisted of several thousand votes not being counted in black-dominated precincts in Cleveland.

          • Kate

            Pretty much all electronic voting machines are hackable, unfortunately. The good news is that when they aren’t networked, you have to hack them all individually.

          • Gustav2

            NO.

          • Kate

            Yes.

            http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/technology/voting-machine-hack-election/

            The communication between the voting machine and the enabling card is unencrypted. It’s possible to perform a man in the middle attack, and get the key. The information on the card is encrypted, but the key is derived from the serial number. It’s on the back of the machine.

            Watch the video.

          • billbear1961

            It MORE than qualifies!!

      • ultragreen

        Stein can appeal to the Federal courts any decision that the Michigan board makes, just as the Republicans appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election.

    • Mike__in_Houston

      Do we know if she can?

      • billbear1961

        I don’t know what she could do, Mike, or what HILLARY could do!

      • ultragreen

        Of course she can appeal any decision that they make.

  • Frostbite

    Who’s committing fraud now Dumpster?

  • Ninja0980

    Hmmm.. if I didn’t know better, I’d say he has something to hide.

    • billbear1961

      Something?

      LOTS!!

    • Outlaw Woman

      The wailing that went up as soon as the “electronic machine” vs. “mechanical tabulation” precinct discrepancies came out was very suspicious … as if the computer/statisticians stumbled upon the smoking gun of Trump’s win.

      • Kate

        Nate Silver did an analysis, and the claims of election hacking didn’t match up with the actual numbers.

        The voting machines are hackable to some degree, but there is no evidence at this point that they were, or that if they were, they were hacked to help Trump.

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

        • ultragreen

          The fact that Trump would even bother to appeal the recount increases the probability that some election fraud, in fact, occurred.

          • Kate

            Why? He’s the president-elect. How can a recount possibly help him? If it can hurt him, and not help him, why wouldn’t he appeal?

          • ultragreen

            If Trump committed fraud, or he suspected that some of his supporters committed fraud, then he would be opposed to the recount. If Trump did not commit fraud, and he did not think any of his supporters had committed fraud, then he would be less opposed to the recount because he has nothing to hide. Therefore, he would be less likely to file an objection to the vote recount in the latter case.

            Also, by attempting to stop a recount, it damages him politically because it looks like he has something to hide. If Trump is successful at stopping the recount in Michigan, then the taint of suspected election fraud will hang over his head throughout his presidency. The same thing happened to G.W. Bush in 2000 when he stopped the recount in Florida – some people still think he stole the election.

    • Chucktech

      You do know better, and he CLEARLY has something to hide. And I sure as fuck ain’t talking penny ante shit like his fucking taxes.

  • So Trump doesn’t want the votes checked. Let’s see him try to sell that as his crusade against a rigged system.

    • Xuuths

      His voters really are too stupid to care about such subtleties.

    • Tempus Fuggit

      What crusade against a rigged system? Pshaw, you’re not thinking of all that crapola he spewed during the campaign, are you? Rigged system, drain the swamp, build the wall, lock her up, etc? He didn’t mean any of it; he’s said so himself.

  • Jerry Kott

    Trump will never be at Peace because he did not win the Popular Vote. It will and is haunting him.

    • Xuuths

      It should.

    • thatotherjean

      Good.

    • billbear1961

      It is our DUTY to see to it that it DOES haunt the illegitimate Mr. MORE-than-2-MILLION-Short!!

      In addition, the counties across the nation that voted for Hillary represent TWO-THIRDS of the country’s economic strength!

      There AGAIN the fascist would-be dictator falls woefully SHORT!!

      The Predator-in-chief, swindler, liar and HATEMONGER who thinks HE is the law–and not the Constitution–has NO MANDATE!!

      • Jerry Kott

        I agree. I read he is a very superstitious person and his win is a loss. This cartoon show has to end.

      • LesbianTippingHabits

        Short is right, and not just with respect to tips.

  • thatotherjean

    Sore winner, and a spoilsport to boot. What’s he afraid of? That he’ll win, but with fewer votes?

  • Lazycrockett

    His leads are shrinking in WI, MI, and PA.

    • billbear1961

      Smaller and smaller, like his goddamned hands!

  • David in Palm Springs

    But Facist Trump said there were 3 million illegal votes cast. And since we all know that Donald would never lie to the American people, he would gain at least 60,000 votes during a recount. Which would get him closer to winning the popular vote. Which begs the question, why is he trying to prevent something that should theoretically help him — and would also reinforce the idea that our election process isn’t corrupt.

  • bobwilliams

    Let’s send it to the right-wing Supremes. They did the Rep-robates’ bidding in 2000.

    • Silver Badger

      Yesssss, let’s do that. Scalia is still dead so President Obama can cast the decisive vote.

      • Gianni

        🙂 I truly don’t believe it works that way.

        • Silver Badger

          It should.

  • Mike__in_Houston

    And of course the Democrats will push back against this with everything they have. Oh, wait…

  • IamM
  • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

    Later.

    Good company for sure.

    Peace.

    • billbear1961
      • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

        From The Second Jungle Book “Red Dog”

        “There is no more to say,” said Akela. “Little Brother, canst thou raise me to my feet? I also was a leader of the Free People.”

        Very carefully and gently Mowgli lifted the bodies [Akela had killed nine dhole] aside, and raised Akela to his feet, both arms round him, and the Lone Wolf drew a long breath, and began the Death Song that a leader of the Pack should sing when he dies. It gathered strength as he went on, lifting and lifting, and ringing far across the river, till it came to the last “Good hunting!” and Akela shook himself clear of Mowgli for an instant, and, leaping into the air, fell backward dead upon his last and most terrible kill.

  • ultragreen

    If the Michigan board agrees with Trump, its decision will be appealed to a Federal court immediately.

    • billbear1961

      It better be!

    • Chucktech

      IOW, stall until it’s moot.

      • McSwagg

        … and it’s still true that “Justice delayed is Justice denied.”

  • lymis

    Doesn’t Stein actually have a horse in the race by virtue of the fact that her Party’s federal funding is contingent on getting a certain percentage of the vote? She doesn’t have to be in a position to win because of the recount to be cheated out of something by fraudulent elections.

    • In terms of Stein’s fast recount move, it was epically brilliant, and something Trump was worth of in terms of a hustle. She has won simply because she has collected an invaluable list of people who want the recount — many or most of whom don’t give a hoot about her Presidential effort. She and the Green Party own these names and can hustle money out of them in the future. More money was raised in a few days off the recount campaign than by the Green Party all year for the Presidential Campaign. Their Wisconsin organization already announced that they will be using “leftover funds” for party building in Wisconsin.

      • DWD (L) DFH UAW MEA (RET)

        As Lilly said, “No matter how cynical you get you can’t keep up.”

        (I concur, obviously)

  • Orly

    Hmm. He seems a little worried about that. If there’s nothing to hide, then why should trump care?

    • Macbill

      Because it takes the focus away from some other outrageous act he is engaged in. Like a magician distracting his audience with a hand fake.

      • Orly

        Ha! Yes, you’re probably right.

  • Gianni

    But, but, but Donald. Don’t you, of all people, want to be absolutely sure that you know the truth and won fair and square? If 3,000,000 illegal aliens really voted for Hillary, wouldn’t it be terrific to be able to throw that fact in hers and the Dem’s faces?

  • Brandon Hall – who worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign in the key swing state of Michigan – was convicted yesterday for felony election fraud he committed in 2012. No wonder Trump wants to stop the recount!

    http://www.palmerreport.com/news/donald-trump-campaign-staffer-convicted-felony-election-fraud/302/

    • McSwagg

      I saw this story but didn’t know about the 2016 campaign connection. Thanks!

  • Will Parkinson

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  • fuow

    We lost Michigan by less than 11,000 votes.
    Every gay man who either didn’t vote or voted third party deserves every horrible thing coming down the pike.
    To you gay men who voted Trump, guess what – that light you see at the end of the tunnel? That’s not the freedom from the oppression of being ‘oppressed’ by a black man for eight years, that’s an oncoming freight train and you’re standing right smack dead in its path.
    Ask the Jews for Hitler how that worked out for them.

  • J Ascher

    Trump said the election was rigged. He just didn’t say it was rigged to favor him!

  • lips

    some dodgy with trumpy not wanting the recount, why does he care he’s not paying and it’s not from the tax-payer
    so why does he care
    if he won, the so called rigging and so illegal votes will be spotted and he would be as happy like when he puffed up his chest I’m the winner

  • Piona O.

    Trump could never play a guitar with those stubby little fingers.

  • JCF

    “Should the Board of State Canvassers side with Trump, the recount will end.”

    Assuming that Board was (majority) appointed by Governor Flint-Poisoner, that’s probably that…

  • Scott MB

    If the recount will show no changes and someone is willing to pay for it, ie. the American people who donated, then what is there to be afraid of. So what if the results won’t come out in time. Maybe it will show voter fraud, you know the thing that Rethuglicans always rail about when elections come around.

    I mean Heir Drumpf has the funds to pay for voting machines to be hacked, counts to be altered, votes be thrown away, etc. If anything it will show that he is the winner. But there is a chance it may call into question the legitimacy of this election. What happens to him then, that is what he is afraid of…the questions that may arise during a recount. If he is so sure then he should be all for the recount if only to prove that he is the true winner. There are questions out there as to how Hillary lost in mainly Democratic counties that used voting machines over counties that used paper ballots. It seems very strange that so many Dems would jump to the other side.

    A recount is needed even if it changes nothing. Even if it is not completed until after the EC votes. If there is widespread fraud seen then a complete recount of all the states will be necessary and he can lose the Presidency no matter if EC voted him in. But the EC can do a faithless vote and not make him President. We can only hope!

  • Another reason the Democrats should have led the recount efforts and sooner.