Green Party Drops Statewide Pennsylvania Recount
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: CBS
The Green Party is dropping its court case seeking a recount of Pennsylvanias Nov. 8 presidential election. It had wanted to explore whether voting machines and systems had been hacked and the election result manipulated.
The Green Partys filing came Saturday, saying it couldnt afford the $1 million bond the court had set. A Commonwealth Court hearing had been scheduled in the case for Monday, and the $1 million bond was due later that day.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has spearheaded a recount effort in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, states where Republican Donald Trump won narrowly over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Read more: http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/03/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/
portlander23
(2,078 posts)It's not a coincidence that actually counting votes in the United States is this hard.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)the bond is so exorbitant someone wants to fight that in court.
Land Shark
(6,348 posts)It is only the statewide that is dropped
sabbat hunter
(7,110 posts)7 million so far. I think they could have afforded to pay the bond if they chose.
What will she do with any left over money?
turbinetree
(27,551 posts)good old wisCONsin had /has a recount going on that cost over $500,000 in 2011, now they come up with some arbitrary number that its going to cost $3.5 million, that is a 2,000 % mark-up in charging for a product , what am I missing here, republican yell voter fraud but when someone wants to ask if there is one .....................they play the game...................
It reminds me of this:
FU you republicans and the horse you road in on
MichMan
(17,151 posts)I thought Stein had raised enough $$$ to see this through? She has raised $7 million and Wisconsin & Michigan recounts will cost $5 million. I guess she and the Green Party will just pocket the left over money now
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And her fundraising website still lists PA.
She is asking for 9 million currently.
kebob
(499 posts)Though just barely! Original is http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141630897
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Posted at the exact same minute. Jon likely hit the submit button a few seconds before I did.
kebob
(499 posts)Not telling you what to do, but whenever I find out I've posted a duplicate, I self-delete.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)in order to overturn the election. If she drops Pennsylvania, that means it's over.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But Jill had some serious coin stacked up for this.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)may have added substantially to the estimated cost. That's my guess, anyway.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm gonna do a little digging as I was already curious where the money is actually going.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)is that the normal amount for a recount bond? If not, I would fight the cost by way of civil rights/equality laws. But now Jill is not committed to following through or so it seems. Yes, it is hard to be a leader. However, just ask for more money, ask for legal help, put out the message and people will respond. Maybe she's tired and wants others to take over or at least help more.
Land Shark
(6,348 posts)It was too onerous to get signaturesome in every precinct statewide. That is why it is only certain counties.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)with $$$$$$. I thought she had raised nearly 7 mill. and I know she didn't spend it all in Mich or Wisc
I say hell yes they did....
The money could have been raised by all those fU*KG SOBs joining the cabinet.
A Couple mill here a nice condo there..hell yes that is the way it works.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)you're jumping to conclusions with no evidence. Although your "hell yes that is the way it works" comment is right on. But in this case of Jill backing out, we don't know the reason except lack of funds. Maybe she's po'd if Hillary wasn't backing recount except for one state (is that still correct?)
7962
(11,841 posts)Its hard to get away with that shit these days.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)EL34x4
(2,003 posts)She was unlikely to get a recount there no matter how much money she coughed up.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)who may have turned the tide
.99center
(1,237 posts)She could've easily raised the money by then!
annielion
(106 posts)Apparently these 100 voters were expected to pay the $1,000,000 bond. An attorney for the Stein campaign wrote "Petitioners are regular citizens of ordinary means. They cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the Court." Jill Stein still plans to continue a county-by-county recount effort in PA. Jill Stein states she will have a news conference about the recount Monday morning outside Trump Tower in New York City.
It is my understanding that all money donated to Jill Stein's recount effort is in a trust and she has no control over it. If there are funds remaining after the recount, funds will be returned to those who donated.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20161204_Jill_Stein_campaign_drops_recount_effort_in_Pa_.html
rurallib
(64,688 posts)"In fact her next step is to fight for precinct by precinct recounts in Pennsylvania until the vote totals have been sufficiently corrected and revised to drop Donald Trumps lead in the state from the current 0.8% mark to the 0.5% mark, which in turn would trigger an automatic statewide recount under Pennsylvania state law. So how many mainstream major media outlets are correctly reporting that the PA recount effort is now continuing with a new strategy? There dont appear to be any.
If you look at the headlines coming from the major media outlets this evening, theyre uniformly misleading in that theyre attempting to create the appearance that Steins recount effort is finished. Green Party drops court case seeking statewide recount of Pennsylvanias Nov. 8 presidential election, states the Associated Press in a tweet which paint the phony picture that there are no next steps. BuzzFeed News falsely claims that Stein put in a request to discontinue the recount request, misleadingly suggesting that she pulled the plug on her own effort. And this ABC News affiliate flatly insisted in its original headline that the challenge to the recount is over before ultimately changing the headline entirely to focus on Steins next move.
It would be one thing for the major media outlets to ignore the recount effort because they simply decided it wasnt newsworthy. But after spending the past week largely pretending the recount effort wasnt happening, these same major media outlets are now racing to report headlines which falsely claim the Pennsylvania recount effort is over. In other words, they didnt want the public to know about that the recounts were even happening, but now they suddenly want to make the public believe that the recounts are over. The mainstream media agenda here isnt entirely decipherable, but it is entirely unacceptable."
.99center
(1,237 posts)The above article say's otherwise.
"Stein had raised millions of dollars, but with so much of that having been eaten up already by Wisconsins sudden price hike and the attorney fees required to fight fierce court battles against all three non-cooperating states, it turns out she didnt have the $1 million cash on hand today to cover Pennsylvanias sudden ransom demand. Thus she was forced to withdraw her court petition for a Pennsylvania recount. That doesnt mean its over, of course, only that there is now another legal hurdle to fight."
"she didnt have the $1 million cash on hand today to cover Pennsylvanias sudden ransom demand"
Hmm, someones wrong here. Was the money due Monday night as other sources are claiming?
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)The line to grab your share starts here! Boy, this Trump guy really IS working magic for our economies!
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Why can't she afford it?
annielion
(106 posts)Apparently PA requires that voters request a recount. So 100 PA voters have requested the recount. It seems they are the ones required to pay the $1,000.000.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)And give that person the money. What is she planning to do with the over 7 million she raised?
KatyBR
(203 posts)She just had to drop the lawsuit. She's on fireside chat explaining
KatyBR
(203 posts)In my field, the request for a $1 million bond actually only means having to come up w/@1%. Sounds like the court is asking the actual individuals for the $10K bond each, and that the Green party is not allowed to pay it...We need clarity here.
dawn frenzy adams
(429 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Too bad Clinton didn't bother to fight for herself.