According to the recently released indictments by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, we know now Putin helped Jill Stein in an effort to siphon votes from Hillary Clinton.
Stein voters were targeted by the 13 Russian agents named in the indictment.
What was the Jill Stein/Putin effect on the 2016 election?
Looking at the three swing states that handed Trump the election (above), we know he won by a combined total of 79,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania.
Check out how those Stein votes align with Trump’s margin of victory in those three states.
Here’s Jill Stein trashing the US while in Russia in December of 2015. She attended a Russian propaganda tv gala & sat at the table with Mike Flynn & Putin. Keep in mind there was absolutely no reason for her to be there. Except to become a Russian pawn. pic.twitter.com/CZK8q2bML5— Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 18, 2018
Former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein embarrassed herself today when she took to Twitter to blame Senate Democrats for the confirmation of billionaire Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary.
“Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests.”
I’m not sure how hard this is to understand but: the Democrats are the minority party in the U.S. Senate. All 48 members of the Democratic caucus voted AGAINST DeVos. That’s all the Dems we got there.
The vote required a simple majority. With two Republican senators joining the Dems, the 50-50 tie was broken by Vice-president Pence, who was definitely going to vote for his boss’ nominee.
It’s staggering that people voted for this woman to be president. Just so you know, Stein is officially the Ralph Nader of 2016.
Here are the votes Stein received in three swing states and Donald Trump’s margin of victory in those states:
Michigan: Stein received 51,463/Trump won by 10,704
Pennsylvania: Stein received 49,678/Trump won by 46,765
Wisconsin: Stein received 31,006/Trump won by 22,177
Things got really heated today on Fox News Sunday as host Chris Wallace challenged Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein on her ongoing mission to see the results of the election recounted in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Said Wallace, “There’s not a chance in the world here, Dr. Stein, that the vote is going to change in those three states.”
I honestly don’t understand why conservatives are so adverse to a recount.
The money has been raised by private citizens, it’s not costing the American taxpayer anything, and it’s legal. Plus, for weeks Donald Trump ranted that the “system was rigged.” Just this week he asserted that there were “millions” of illegal votes in other states.
So what’s so bad about looking into these issues?
I don’t believe a recount will change the outcome of the election, but I do agree with Dr. Stein that irregularities will always lead to questions unless we actually audit results in our elections.
What harm could there be?
And one more thing – Wallace asserts that Stein is doing exactly what Trump declared before the election in that he said he may or may not accept the results of the election.
The difference between the two is that Trump was saying he might not accept results based on nothing that had happened yet. Stein is acting now, in a perfectly legal manner, based on the research of computer experts who have seen irregularities that don’t seem to make sense. Trump’s statements before the election are not the same as Stein’s after.
“You cannot see voter fraud unless you actually check the votes,” she said on CNN Tuesday morning. “There’s absolutely no way to know. We should have checks and balances built into the process.
“There should be an automatic audit and we should not be using these voting machines that have been proven to be so incredibly unreliable, that are incapable of actually reading what the marking is on the piece of paper.”
“I’ve always said when I was asked throughout the campaign, ‘Would I stand up and call for a recount if there were doubts about the reliability of the vote?’ ” she said. “I’ve always said ‘yes.’ “I’ve never taken sides in this election between the two establishment candidates. We do not have skin in the game. We’re here to stand up for everyday voters who need a better way forward.
Dr. Jill Stein on recount: “You cannot see voter fraud” unless you check the votes, so we need “checks and balances” https://t.co/IOybHfrrV0
Marc Elias, general counsel for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, announced today in an essay posted on Medium that the campaign will participate in the upcoming audit/recount effort begun by Jill Stein earlier this week.
Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.
If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well.
We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.
Stein’s team is looking for not only a recount, but a reconciliation of paper records from the election.
Weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump warned over and over that the system was “rigged.” We might just find out it really was – in his favor.
With Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote currently exceeding 2.1 million, computer cyber scientists at the University of Michigan noting serious “irregularities” in voting patterns in three swing states, plus the now infamous hacking into Clinton campaign emails by Russian actors, many feel it’s possible the election may well have been tampered with.
Dozens of professors specialising in cybersecurity, defense, and elections have in the past two days signed an open letter to congressional leaders stating that they are “deeply troubled” by previous reports of foreign interference, and requesting swift action by lawmakers.
“Our country needs a thorough, public congressional investigation into the role that foreign powers played in the months leading up to November,” the academics said in their letter, while noting they did not mean to “question the outcome” of the election itself.
Halderman, the University of Michigan computer security expert, noted that this Friday is the deadline for requesting a recount in Wisconsin, where Trump’s winning margin stands at 0.7%. In Pennsylvania, where his margin is 1.2%, the deadline falls on Monday. In Michigan, where the Trump lead is currently just 0.3%, the deadline is Wednesday 30 November.
In response to these issues, Independent presidential candidate Jill Stein has raised over $4.8 million, with a goal of $7 million, to pay for a recount/audit of the voting in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Stein has publicly stated the effort is not to aid Clinton but “to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.”
While I personally don’t think the election results will be overturned by this exercise, I think a huge segment of the American electorate will feel better having the (surprising) votes in these three states examined.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who did not poll high enough to qualify for the first presidential debate this coming Monday at Hofstra University, says she plans to participate “live in the debate on social media.”
Additionally, Stein will take part in a “Let Jill Debate” protest in front of Hofstra University before the debate commences, as well as a “People’s Debate.”
The commission which plans and organizes presidential debate had set a threshold of an average of 15% polling across five major national polls (ABC-Washington Post, CBS-New York Times, CNN-Opinion Research Corporation, Fox News, and NBC-Wall Street Journal) to qualify for the first debate.
The Commission on Presidential Debates previously decided that to be invited to take part in the first presidential debate coming up on Monday, September 26, a candidate had to have at a minimum average of 15% of five specific national polls.
Those polls are ABC-Washington Post, CBS-New York Times, CNN-ORC, Fox News and the NBC/Wall Street Journal.
The Commission announced today that only Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump meets or exceeds that requirement.
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party failed to reach the threshold of 15%.
Johnson averaged 8.4%, and Stein found an average of 3.2% support.
The result is bad news not only for Johnson and Stein, but for Trump, who will now have to face Hillary Clinton one on one. Clinton is a skilled debater armed with tons of facts to address questions. The Trump campaign has shared that their candidate doesn’t feel the need to do any serious prep for the three presidential debates.